Delhi

North East

CC/338/2024

Jasvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Celebrate Honda - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.338/24

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Jasvinder Singh S/o Sh Atma Singh R/o D26/1 St. No.08, New Govind Pura Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.             3.               4.         5.           6.	Celebrate Honda (A Unit of Celebrate Motors Pvt. Ltd.) Through Manager Showroom 68, Arjun Nagar Jagat Puri, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 62, Delhi-110051   Perfect Finance Pvt. Ltd. Through Manager 10 No. Anand Gram Church Compound Tahirpur, Delhi- 110095   Celebrate Honda Workshop Through Owner X 1720 Main Road, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi-110031   Celebrate Honda Workshop Through Owner Plot No. 27, Patparganj Industrial Area Delhi 110092   Perfect Finance Pvt. Ltd. Through Manager T 24 A, Block Q, Green Park Extentison, New Delhi 110016     Bank of Baroda Through manager Defence Enclave Delhi 110092	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

1. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, the case of the Complainant is that Complainant purchased the model 6G Activa (SCV110LI) on 06.08.21 for a sum of Rs. 85,500/- from Opposite Party No.1 and paid down payment of Rs. 21,500/- to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 approved loan of Rs. 65,000/- having EMI of Rs. 2,726/- per month for 3 years.  The Complainant stated that the above said vehicle was creating various problems such as missing, not picking race, not working soccer of back side and also not working speed meter under the only 20 km. Thereafter Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 but Opposite Party No.1 did not give any satisfactory response and referred to Opposite Party No.3 for service and maintenance of vehicle and Complainant got serviced his vehicle many times but the problem was not resolved. Thereafter, Complainant again contacted Opposite Party No.1 then Opposite Party No.1 again referred to Opposite Party No.4. On 18.08.21 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.4 for service of said vehicle but Opposite Party No.4 has sent to give job card against services of said vehicle. On 08.09.21 Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.4 for services and Opposite Party No.4 gave job card no. 739 and cancelled the same and gave new job card having bill of Rs. 610/-  but the problem was not resolved and on 31.12.21 Complainant has done 2nd service of said vehicle. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.4 had sent two bills of said vehicle having two different numbers. Thereafter on 04.03.22 Complainant raised complaint  through email and on 11.03.22 Opposite Party denied to give any reply. On 06.04.22 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.4 for 3rd service and Opposite Party No.4 raised bill of Rs. 1,500/- and meter reading was 6675/- but Opposite Party No.4 mentioned on the bill metre reading 12674 then Complainant requested Opposite Party No.4 to take correct measurement steps but Opposite Party No.4 denied and gave bill of Rs. 1,791/-. On 13.04.22 vehicle again raised problems and Opposite Party No.4 denied servicing the vehicle. On 14.04.22 Complainant submitted his vehicle to Opposite Party No.4 against job card no. 975 and Opposite Party No.4 returned the vehicle on next day. Thereafter on 05.05.22 Complainant faced the same problems then he sent written complaint to Opposite Party No.4 but no reply received and on 16.08.22 Complainant lodged police complaint against Opposite Parties but no action was taken against them. On 26.12.22 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 for 4th service having meter reading 13502 km and Opposite Party raised bill of Rs. 4,999/- but vehicle was not working properly and also Opposite Party No.3 take the service charge 700/- further, the Complainant made complaint to branch manager that battery of vehicle was not working but no action was taken. The Complainant has also submitted battery to Opposite Party No.4 vide job card 7396 and Opposite Party No.4 returned battery to Complainant after few days but the problem still exists. On 06.01.23 Complainant received message from Opposite Party No.5 that EMI was pending rather Complainant paid all EMIs on timely manner. The Complainant has demanded cheques from Opposite Party No.6 to trace out financial transaction but all in vain. On 20.05.23 Complainant lodged complaint  through online helpline number and got grievance number. The one mediation was also held but Complainant did not get any final result. The Complainant sent many letters to Opposite Party but Opposite Parties did not give any reply. The Complainant has prayed for complete refund of the consideration amount of Rs. 85,500/- paid against the purchase of the vehicle in question with the additional 18 % interest per annum and Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment. The Complainant has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. We have heard the Complainant and have perused the file. As per the Complainant, he had purchased the scooter on 06.08.21 for a sum of                   Rs. 85,500/- but as per the invoice enclosed with the complaint the cost of the said scooter was Rs. 69,080/-. He included EMI interest paid to the financer also in the price of the scooter. Further, he did not substantiate any cause of action against Opposite Party No.2, 5 & 6 and he did not pray any relief against Opposite Party No. 2, 5 & 6. He did not led any evidence with regard to manufacturing defect in the said scooter which was as per document submitted along with complaint covered distance more than 4,000 kms and 13,000 kms in 4 and 16 months respecitvely after purchasing the said scooter.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata and Another vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Others (2020) 9SCC 424) held that the initial onus or burden to justify, verify and authenticate the fact that there is a deficiency of service committed by a party is on the Complainant.
4. In view of our considered view, Complainant failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore the complaint is dismissed.
5. Order announced on 13.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)