Delhi

East Delhi

CC/870/2014

RAJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEWAN AUTO - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.       870/2014

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               26/09/2014

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               09/05/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       12/05/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Raj Kumar, adult   

s/o Sh shiv Kumar 

R/o- 869, sunlight Colony No. 2

Ashram, New Delhi 110014 ……………………….……………...…………….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

 

1-The Manager, Dewan Auto

J -25, 2^nd Floor, Central Market 

Lajpat Nagar New II, New Delhi 1100024

 

2-The Manager, Bagga Link

Link Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110055

 

3-M/s Baja Auto

O- 35/A1, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095……..……………..….…………..Opponents

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                  Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant purchased a new Bajaj pulsar motor cycle -150 vide registration no. DL3SCH2176 having engine no. DHZCCH03285 and chassis no. MD2A11CZ100H08145 on 19/11/2012 for a sum of Rs 75000/-vide cash receipt no. CR 32708 from OP1/ Dewan Auto as seller as marked Ex CW1/1 and 2.

The said two wheeler developed some problem, so was taken to the authorized service centre to OP1 where it was stated that smoke and shocker problems occurred, but workshop manager with OP1 told that in its first service, these problems would be rectified.  

So, complainant took his two wheeler for its first free service on 10/04/2013 where job sheet was given vide no. JCN04254222 as annexed Ex CW1/3. As per the complaint, the same problem again occurred, so he took his motor cycle for second service on 09/08/2013 vide job sheet no. JCN04261057 as marked Ex CW1/4. Thereafter complainant had problem in smooth driving so again took his motor cycle to OP1 on dated 12/12/2013 and 27/12/2013 vide CW1/5 and 6, but complainant was not satisfied with the services given by the OP1.

Complainant had some problem in excess smoke, so took his motor cycle to Sharma Auto Centre as another authorized service centre on 10/08/2014 vide job sheet no. C-90 and complainant paid a sum of Rs 5419/- where many parts of the engine were replaced as marked CW1/7.

Thereafter, complainant lodged his complaint with OP1 to replace his motor cycle to new one or refund the amount paid as his vehicle had manufacturing defect in the engine and had to invest lot of money on it besides harassment. When complainant did not get satisfactory reply from OP1, filed this complaint claimed refund of sum of Rs 75,000/ as a cost of his motor cycle with 24% with compensation of Rs 50,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony with Rs 25,000/- as litigation charges.

Notices were served. OP1 submitted joint written statement on behalf of OP2 also. They totally denied the allegations of complainant that OP had deficiency in their services. OP stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the said motor cycle and whenever complainant visited for any problem, it was rectified free of cost as the motor cycle was under one year standard warranty for services. During his visit for his first service on 10/04/2013 after running for 2350 km, no service charge was taken except fuel filter which does not come under warranty. There was no manufacturing defect in the engine.

It was accepted by OP that complainant visited number of times for getting fittings of various accessories in his two wheeler and were paid by him and all such visit were not for any complaint. It was submitted by OP1 that his second free service was done on 09/08/2013 vide annexure CW1/4 which was on record. Here again, no charges were taken for service except for fuel filter and carbon checking from the engine. At this second free service, his vehicle had run to 7167 km and had no manufacturing defect.  

 

Complainant did not come for further service with OP1, but got done his paid service from Sharma Auto as this service was after warranty period. Hence, all the allegations of complainant were false and incorrect as there was no evidence of manufacturing defect in the engine of motor cycle even after running  over two thousand km without defect in its first free service. So it was prayed to dismiss this complaint.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidence submitted by him were correct and true. OP also filed their evidence on affidavit through Mr R P Yadav, Manager with OP1 who stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the engine as alleged by the complainant and two free services were done by them.  

 

Arguments were heard from both the parties and order was reserved.

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, it was observed that the there was no evidence on record which could substantiate the allegation of complainant for manufacturing defect in the engine. Also complainant could not prove any deficiency in services of OPs. OP3 was wrongly mentioned by him as it was not a necessary party, so was removed from the array of party.  

Hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant had failed in establishing the deficiency of the OP and this complaint has no merit so deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Act and file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                         Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                                                         

                                      

                                                  Shri  Sukhdev Singh  President