Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 68.
Instituted on : 15.02.2018.
Decided on : 19.08.2019.
Sandeep Kumar age 38 years, s/o Sh. Partap Singh R/o village-Ghuskani, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Ansh Bajaj, Sheela Bye-pass, Near Sagar Villa Hotel, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager/Owner/Proprietor.
- Bajaj Auto Limitede Regional Office B-60/61, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028 through its Regional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Jasvir Kundu, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that one Sandeep had purchased a Bajaj Platina motorcycle from the opposite party No.1 on 02.02.2016 and the same was got registered bearing registration No.HR-26CU-3761 with 2 years warranty. That complainant purchased the said motorcycle from said Sandeep and vehicle and insurance policy as transferred in his favour. That since the date of purchase of the motorcycle, the complainant is facing problem in backside tyre and speed meter. Because the motorcycle is having some manufacturing defect, due to which the back tyre will automatically become defective and rubbed and some fog will spread in the speed meter, due to which it does not show actual speed of the motorcycle and respondent no.1 charged an amount of Rs.6100/- for repairing the vehicle. But even after repair, the complainant is facing the same problem in his vehicle again and again. That complainant requested the opposite part No.1 either to replace the vehicle with new one or to make the payment of value of the said motorcycle, but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to supply a brand new motorcycle with full warranty or to refund the cost of motorcycle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that there is no information regarding the resale of the motorcycle by its actual owner to the complainant. No specific date of sale and purchase has been mentioned. Hence the complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties. That the motorcycle has been run upto 18606 kms till 22.01.2018 and the present complaint was filed on 15.02.2018. In fact, the present complaint has been filed just to pressurized the opposite parties to meet the illegal demand of the complainant. That there is no defect in the vehicle in question and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed his evidence on dated 30.07.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, and closed his evidence on dated 17.05.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the grievance of the complainant is that since the date of purchase of the motorcycle, the complainant is facing problem in backside tyre and speed meter, due to which it does not show actual speed of the motorcycle and respondent no.1 charged an amount of Rs.6100/- for repairing the vehicle. To prove this fact, complainant has placed on record, report of a mechanic Ex.C16 and copy of bill Ex.C15 as per which opposite party has charged Rs.6100/- from the complainant on account of speed meter, rear tyre, swing arm and rear shocker and labour on dated 22.01.2018.
7. A bare perusal of report of mechanic Ex.C16 shows that there is excess rubbing of rear tyre due to swing and rear shocker problem which needs replacement. As per job sheets Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 and vehicle history Ex.C17 also, there was excess rubbing of rear tyre. Hence, as per document Ex.C15, the charging of amount of Rs.1300/- on account of rear tyre, Rs.1300/- on account of swing arm and Rs.1700/- on account of rear shocker during the warranty period is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite parties are liable to refund the same.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.4300/-(Rupees four thousand three hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.02.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision,
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.08.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
