IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 135/S/2014.                         DATED : 09.06.2016.            

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT                 : Sri Rajan Subba,

  S/o. Subanay Subba,

  Gayabari T.E., Shanti Tole,

  P.O.- Phugri, P.S.- Mirik, Dist- Darjeeling.

OPs                 1.                     : BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,

  Akurdi, Pune – 411 035,

  India.

2.                     : L.K. MOTORS,

  Satbhaia Main Road, Naxalbari,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased a motor bike from the OP No.2 on 06.01.2014, and the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the motor bike.  The complainant claims that soon after purchase, he discovered that the motor bike was defective, and he approached the OP No.2 for redress, but to no avail.  The complainant thus filed this case praying that the OPs be directed to replace the motor bike, or to pay him the purchase price of the motor bike, and he prays for some other reliefs as well. 

The OP Nos.1 & 2 have contested the case filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  The OPs case is that said vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 06/01/2014 and after continuously and extensively using the same for more than eight months, filed this complaint on 26/09/2014.  This long usage in itself will indicate that there is no defect in the vehicle.  Had there been any issue in the vehicle, it would not function for so long, added to it the motorcycle is even today in extensive use.  So, it is a concocted story and OPs deny said allegation of the complainant.  This complaint requires to be dismissed with cost on the preliminary ground of objection itself.  It is also case of the OPs that

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

OPs are ready to repair any defects at the time of warranty period with free service and after warranty with paid service.  It is also case of the OPs that the complainant did not prove defect by expert opinion under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly, should be dismissed.

Complainant has filed the following document :-

1.       Tax receipt marked and annexed as Annexure 1.

2.       Insurance Papers marked and annexed as Annexure 2.

3.       Invoice of the motorbike purchased from L. K. Motors Annexure 3.

          OP Nos.1 & 2 has filed written notes of argument. 

Points for decision

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

 It is admitted position that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the OP Nos.1 & 2 on 06.01.2014.  The complaint of defect has been lodged before the OP on 26.09.2014 i.e., after nine months.  It is not the case of the complainant soon after purchase he found alleged defect as per his allegation.  Moreover, there is specific Provision in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding manner of dealing of such type of cases where the allegation of defect is raised by the complainant.  But in this case in our hand there is no such expert opinion to make conclusion regarding defect of the said vehicle i.e., motor cycle.  So, the evidence in record, inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum to hold that complainant has succeeded to prove his allegation laid down in the complaint.  As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.135/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without cost.  

                     -Member-                                  -President-