Date of Filing: 17/12/2018

Date of Judgement: 11/09/2023

Sri Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President

                                                                             BRIEF FACTS

On 13/5/2018, petitioner purchased one Hero Bike Splender + 13SDRS – CAST from Balaji Motors, Extension Counter Maheshtala Branch, (hereinafter referred to as OP No. 2), Shibrampur, Natunhat, Paruipara Mouza, Kolkata 700141.  The said extension counter of Balaji Motors is managed and controlled by Balaji Motors (OP No. 1), 41B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata 700063, P.S. Thakurpukur and all invoices, money receipts and other documents are issued by OP 1.  The consideration of the said bike was Rs.62,892/- and petitioner paid the said price by way of taking loan.  According to petitioner, one wrong bike was supplied to him and on 21/5/2018, he was told by OP 2 about delivery of the wrong bike and requested him to return the said bike.  Accordingly, complainant returned the bike and another bike was delivered to him being Engine No. HA10AGJHA36296, Chasis No. MBLHAR078JHA32993.  According to petitioner, the said bike produced some wrong sounds from the engine, and the clutch, gear, etc.  also were not working properly.  On being informed, both OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 assured him of resolving the problems within three days, but they did nothing. Rather he was threatened, for which he lodged one GD with the concerned P.S.  He further alleged that the OPs refused to return the bike following which he issued one notice through his Advocae on 31/7/2018 requesting for returning the bike after resolving the problems.  He had to issue one such notice again, but to no effect.  So, by filing the instant complaint, he prays for a direction upon the OPs to change his bike which was given to him, compensation and cost of litigation.

OP No. 1, 2 & 3 filed one written version contending that the complaint is not at all maintainable.  Further, OP No. 3 is not involved in the process of sale of the vehicles to the end customers and their role is limited to the extent of providing warranty benefit to the end customers on the terms and conditions in the warranty leaflet.  However, in the written statement, the OPs claimed about non-existence of any problem in the said bike.  So, they prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.

The Point for consideration is, if the petitioner is entitled to relief in this case.

                                             FINDINGS

We have gone through the evidence of both parties, questionnaires and replies thereto to and also the documents filed in this case.  We have also considered the written argument filed in the case. 

Admittedly, the petitioner purchased one bike, the engine No. of which was HA10AGJHA36296, Chasis No. MBLHAR078JHA32993 from OP No. 1 & 2.  One road challan, quotation, tax invoices etc. also have been produced by the petitioner.  It is also found that the entire price of the said bike was paid by the complainant on the date of purchase, which is 13/5/2018.  The OPs have not disputed the contention of the petitioner that, on being asked, following some noise problem etc. emanating from the engine, petitioner deposited his bike with OP No. 2 for resolving the problem.  According to petitioner, thereafter he requested the OPs to return the bike after resolving the problem, but that was not done.  In this connection, we find petitioner produced two notices issued through his Advocate on 23/7/2018 and 12/11/2018 requesting to resolve the problem and to deliver the same within a specified period.  But nothing in this regard has been produced by the OPs.

Though OPs have claimed that there was no problem in the bike, but they failed to state the reasons as to why the same was not delivered to the petitioner, even if the said bike was free from any problem.

The petitioner who had purchased the bike on 13.05.2018 in order to put it for his own use for the sake of convenience, on payment of the entire amount to OP No. 1 & 2 by procuring loan, but actually could not use the same for all these long years.  So, there are sufficient reasons for feeling aggrieved by the petitioner.  Therefore, we think on considering the materials on record, the petitioner is entitled to get back the said bike free from any trouble therein from OP No. 1 and 2 and he is also entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation.

Therefore, it is

                                              ORDERED

The instant complaint case is allowed against the OPs on contest. 

OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to return the bike in question to the petitioner free from any problem therein within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.  OP 1 & 2 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner also within the aforesaid period. 

If the above order is not complied with by the OP No. 1 & 2, petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed with accordance of law.

Dictated and corrected by me

             President