Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/9/2017

HARBHAJ RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

CARGO MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gurdial Singh

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                  

                               Consumer Complaint No.      09/2017

                               Date of Institution                   :   06.03.2017      

Date of decision             :   17.07.2017

Harbhaj Ram son of Amar Chand, resident of Garle Dhahan, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Cargo Motors (Punjab) Pvt. Ltd., Garshankar Road, Tehsil Nawanshar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar through its owner/Manager 

2.       Honda Motorcycles & Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. Commercial Complex-II, Sec-49-50, Golf Course, Extension Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122018

                                                          ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Complainant in person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Avtar Manmohanjit Singh, Adv.

                                                for OPs.

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

 ORDER

PER S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

1. The brief facts of the complaint that the complainant had purchased a new Activa Scooter bearing Chassis No. ME4JF505HG 7271112 and Engine No. JF50E73271370 from OPs for payment of Rs.56,700/- on 24.08.2016, out of which Rs.10,000/- paid in cash and complainant took a loan of the remaining amount from Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd.

1. The above scooter’s registration no. PB32V5046 issued in the name of the complainant by the District Transport Officer, SBS Nagar. On 27.10.2016, the horn of the scooter  created a problem, so the complainant changed the horn from Sohan Pal Honda, Garshankar Road, Balachaur. The complainant pleaded that inspite of scooter is under warranty but Cargo Agency did not changed the horn. The complainant has been time to time doing the service of the above said Active from the Cargo Agency under receipt. He further pleaded that usually some technical fault caused in the scooter, but agency had not removed the fault of the above said scooter.  In this way, the OPs amounts to deficiency in service for which complainant has entitled for relief claim and as such instant complaint has been filed with prayer that direction be given to OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation, refund the amount of the above said scooter or replace the above said vehicle with new one.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OP appeared through counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that instant complaint is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed. Further it is alleged that OPs are neither deficient in service nor any unfair trade practice on its part. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The vehicle in question financed with Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. The complainant has misrepresented and misstated the fact. OPs had sold the scooter in question to the complainant bearing Chassis No. ME4JF505HG 7271112 and Engine No. JF50E73271370. The documents produced by the complainant do not pertain to the above mentioned scooter, which was purchased by him, but belong to one Jagjit Singh of Honda Motor Dream Yoga having different chassis and engine number. On merits, the OPs pleaded that any vehicle is brought to the workshop of OPs and the same is attended to and fault if any was removed and amount charged only, which is not under the warranty.  Rest of the averments have been denied by OPs and prayed that complaint is without merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the complaint, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Harbhaj Ram Ex.CW-1/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. I.D Sharma, Senior Manager (Finance) Cargo Motor Pvt. Ltd Ex.OP-1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/4 and closed the evidence.   
5. We have heard counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the file carefully with the valuable assistance of complainant and counsel for the opposite parties.

6.       After considering the overall factum as put before us by the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the complainant had purchased a Activa Scooter on 24.08.2016. As per job card Ex.OP-5, the OPs did first free service on 23.09.2016, second free service on 21.12.2016, vide job card Ex.OP-6 and third miscellaneous work, took place on 27.12.2016, vide Ex.OP-7. As per job card Ex.C-9 dated 20.02.2017, there is no defect in kick jam, horn and race missing. “A man can lie, but document can’t.” As per Ex.OP-6, in the column of description only engine oil sc changed. Ex.OP-7, in the column of description engine oil sc and gear oil changed and Ex.OP-8 in the column of description only  miscellaneous work done.  In Ex.C-9 in the column of description engine oil sc and gear oil changed and also provided free services to the complainant by the OPs. If any technical defect caused, as per contention of the complainant in his activa scooter, so why not appear during all the free services, so it means this is not a technical problem.  

7.       Moreover, the documents produced by the complainant Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 do not pertain to the above mentioned scooter, which was purchased by the complainant but belongs to one Jagjit Singh of Honda Motor Dream Yoga having different chassis and engine number. The complainant has not impressed us regarding any technical defect in the vehicle in question as well as not proved the authenticity of the documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 produced by him. Moreover, the OPs never denied to provide the service as per job card dated 23.09.2016, 21.12.2016, 27.12.2016 and 20.02.2017. As per para no.3 of the complaint, complainant pleaded that he had changed the horn on 27.10.2016, but no evidence produced on record to change the horn by the complainant.  So, as per factum of the case OPs are not deficient in service or any unfair trade practice on its part. Apart from above, we have also of the opinion that complainant has brought on the file job cards i.e. Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and similarly OPs have also brought on the file some job cards i.e. Ex.OP-1/2, Ex.OP-11/3 and Ex.OP-4. But from all job cards, it transpired that there is no major/technical defect came out, if so, then the complainant is not entitle for return of the price of the said vehicle or for replacement of the vehicle. So, with these observations, we find no force in the arguments put by the complainant, therefore, complaint of the complainant is without merit and same is hereby dismissed.

8.       Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9        Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 17.07.2017                                                         

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                 (Karnail Singh)

    Member                                President