Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/483/2016

Force Motors Limites Through Authorized Signatory - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhoomija Commodities Through Partner Mukesh Modi - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Bansal

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 483/2016

 

Force Motors Ltd., regd.office at Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune, Maharashtra.

Vs.

Bhoomija Commodities through partner Mukesh Modi, L -8, 5^th floor, Upasana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 12.9.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Vipin Gupta counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd dated 5.4.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

2

 

The contention of the appellant is that there is no defect in the vehicle and as per warranty they have given regular services to the consumer. The vehicle was purchased in 2011 and it cannot be repaired now in 2016. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. None appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of service.

 

The contention of the appellant is that they have given the best services and no money was charged for the complaints. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle hence, the claim has wrongly been allowed by the Forum below but the record of the Forum below goes to show that the vehicle was admittedly purchased on 26.10.2011 and on 31.10.2011 it was brought to the service provider with the complaints that vehicle is noisy, there is gap between doors, balance is not proper, clutch and gear were very hard, horn is problematic, vehicle pull in side and so on. There is no dispute about the fact that these complaints were taken care by the appellant but the vehicle history submitted by the appellant himself goes to show that till October 2012 meaning thereby that after one year of

3

 

purchase of the vehicle the vehicle having problems like defective blinks, noise during running, lock problem, fuel gauge not working properly, hand break hard to apply etc. and time to time action has been taken by the appellant and some parts were also replaced but the vehicle history goes to show that the vehicle was problematic. Hence, the Forum below after considering the merit of the case and relying on the vehicle history which has been submitted by the appellant himself has rightly ordered for the compensation and repair of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in the impugned findings. This may be noted that repairs of the vehicle would be limited only to the complaints lodged in para no. 7 of the complaint.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm