BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.77 of 2015 Date of Institution : 21.4.2015
Date of Decision : 1.3.2017
Vasdev son of Sh. Uttam Chand, resident of village Mallekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Devi Motors, Main Road, Mallekan, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, through its Prop.
2. Hero Moto Corp Ltd., 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Delhi-110 057, through its Manager (Impleaded as per order of the Forum).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: None for complainant.
Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. B.L. Narula, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief is that he purchased one motor cycle Splendor/smart bearing engine No.HA12EME9H14009, chassis No.MBLHA12ACE9H13751 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.48821/- vide invoice No.1504 dated 6.9.2014 after all assurances given by the op no.1. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- in cash and remaining amount was got financed through HDFC Bank. That after purchase of motor cycle, the same started to create problems i.e. starting problem, gear problem, sound problem as well as problem of mileage etc. The complainant immediately approached the op no.1 and told about the problems upon which op no.1 asked that these are minor problems and will be removed after first service. However after first service the same problems still exists and upon complaint to op no.1, he told that his mechanic will remove the same. But after some repair, the said problems again existed in the motor cycle. The complainant again visited to op no.1 and told that there is a manufacturing defect in the motor cycle and asked him to replace the same with new one but to no effect rather op no.1 threatened him. It is further alleged that sale price of the said motor cycle was Rs.48821/- but op no.1 had received Rs.55,000/- from him. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed reply denying any defect in the motor cycle and denying whole contents of complaint. It has been submitted that the complainant has obtained three/four services of motor cycle with his entire satisfaction without making any complaint to the op as is clear from the service manual book which itself was signed by complainant.
3. OP no.2 appeared and sought various adjournments for filing written statement including last opportunity but did not file the same and therefore, its right for filing written statement was closed by order and the case was adjourned to 28.2.2017 for evidence of complainant.
4. On 28.2.2017, when the case was fixed for evidence of complainant, none appeared to represent the complainant despite of repeated calls and waited up to 4.30 p.m. and ultimately the case was adjourned for today for appearance on behalf of complainant as well as consideration.
5. Today also, none is present to represent the complainant despite repeated calls. This Forum choose the way to decide the complaint on the basis of available record instead of dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution i.e. in default. We have heard learned counsel for ops and have gone through the record. On perusal of record, there is only a copy of delivery challan and copy of bill of the amount of Rs.48,821/-. Besides it, no supporting evidence is available on the record to prove the defect in the motor cycle and charging of extra amount by op no.1 from complainant. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to bring home the allegations of complaint against the ops. Resultantly, complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:1.3.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
