DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 126 of 10.4.2018

                                      Decided on: 6.8.2021

Ranjit Singh aged about 30 years son of Surjit Singh r/o H.No.57, Ward No.3, Bollar Chowk, Sanour, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Avon Honda, Patiala Road Sanour, District Patiala, through its Manager.
2. Umesh Saini, Salesman, Avon Honda, Patiala Road Sanour, District Patiala.
3. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter, India Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Complex-II, Sector 49-50, Gold Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member                                 

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.G.S.Sarwara, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Vikas Mittal, counsel for OPs.                                

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by   Ranjit Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Avon Honda (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased the Honda Activa 3-G white in colour having registration No.PB-11-CD-0389 from OP No.1 vide receipt No.256 dated 7.12.2016 for Rs.50,243/- with two years guarantee and 7 years warranty as assured by OPs No.1&2.
3. It is averred that the OPs also assured that the vehicle in question will give 55 to 60 km average in one liter. It is further averred that after using the vehicle, it gave average of only 35 to 30 km per liter. The front both shocker of the vehicle are weaker and making unnecessary and unwanted noise at the time of driving. It is further averred that the complainant approached the OPs in this regard who rectify the defects but after using the vehicle the average was not increased. The complainant time and again visited the OPs for the rectification of the defects but all in vain. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to replace the vehicle with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.50,243/- to pay Rs.80,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and also to pay Rs.20,000/-as costs of litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act;that the present complaint is false and frivolous.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.1 and service book was provided to the complainant at the time of delivery containing the guarantee and warrantee .It is further averred that free services were availed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs .After denying all other averments the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sahil Anand Prop. of Avon Honda and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased Honda Activa 3G, white in colour on 7.12.2017 for Rs.50,243/- paid in cash and OPs assured the complainant that the vehicle is having two years guarantee and 7 years warrantee and will give 55 -60KM average in one liter. The ld. counsel further argued that after using the vehicle it gave only 35 to 30km average and the complainant requested the OPs to change the vehicle but in vain.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that there is no force in this complaint as the complainant never came with specific complaint with the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that no evidence was produced by the complainant to show that scooter in question gave only 30km average per liter. The ld. counsel further argued that this allegation has to be proved by expert evidence. He has also relied upon the citations Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs.Anil Jose and Ors. Appeal No.746 of 2004 decided on 9.6.2009 by the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram  on the point that “Except testimony, no evidence was produced by the complainants to show that the vehicles were giving mileage of only 45 KMs. per litre-Such a case of specific allegations has to be proved by adducing evidence-Price of the vehicle was only Rs.30,000/-  Compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Forum was not justified-Impugned order set aside-Appeal allowed.”.The ld. counsel also cited Lovely Autos Vs. Harmesh Lal and Anr. Revision Petition No.3031 of 2005 decided on 8.1.2007  and Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Tata Engineering Loco Motive Co. Ltd. and Anr.  First Appeal No.703 of 2006 decided on 1.12.2006 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi.
11. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the delivery challan, Ex.C2 is the receipt vide which the scooter in question was purchased on 7.12.2016 for Rs.50,243/-Ex.C3 is the certification of registration, Ex.C4 is insurance policy, Ex.C5 is legal notice,Ex.C6 is postal receipt,Ex.C7 is performance of Honda Activa.
12. On the other hand Sahil Anand has tendered his affidavit,Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written version.
13. The allegation of the complainant is that he has purchased the scooter Honda Activa 3G vide receipt,Ex.C1 on 7.12.2016 for Rs.50243/- and at that time he was given assurance that the average of the same will be 55 to 60KM per litre. It is pleaded that when he started using the scooter the scooter was giving 35-30km average only. There is only bald statement of the complainant on the file in this regard and there is no expert evidence on the file to show that the scooter was not giving average of 55-60km per litre as alleged by the complainant. Thus only on the testimony of the complainant without any expert report on the file, the complaint of the complainant is not proved. Similar view is held by the Hon’ble National Commission as cited above in the case Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs.Anil Jose (supra).
14. So due to our above discussion there is no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly.    

ANNOUNCED

DATED:6.8.2021         

                                      Vinod Kumar Gulati          Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                            Member                                        President