Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/10/1622

HERO HONDA MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHANRAJ S.RAJPUT. - Opp.Party(s)

SH. AJAY GUPTA

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 1622 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 20.05.2010 passed in C.C. No. 275/2009 by the District Forum, Hoshangabad)  

 

HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD & ORS.                                    …            APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

LATE DHANRAJ SINGH RAJPUT

THROUGH LRS.                                                                    …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

19.10.2016

 

          None present for the parties.

           

As per Shri Subhash Jain : 

                        None for the appellant who was also not present on last four dates of hearing i.e. 12.12.2014, 04.01.2016, 05.02.2016 and 21.06.2016. 

2.                     None for the respondent to whom registered notice was also sent on 24.06.2016.

3.                     We have considered the appeal on merits as appellant is continuously absent.

4.                     This appeal is by the opposite party being aggrieved with the order dated 20.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshangabad in CC No.275/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed.

5.                     We have perused the record and the order passed by the District Forum.  The District Forum in its order dated 20.05.2010 has very descriptively and elaborately mentioned in para 14 that in the motorcycle purchased by the respondent from the appellant was having defects immediately after its purchase and the defects were not removed even after repeated servicing. From the job cards produced on the record it is evident that the supervisor and authorized

-2-

mechanics of the appellant have noted regarding average, voice from engine and visor and other defects.  Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the District Forum directed the opposite party/appellants to repair the vehicle in full satisfaction of the respondent and if it is not possible to refund the price of the vehicle.  Compensation in the sum of Rs.3,000/- and cost Rs.1000/- has also been awarded.

5.                     In view of the above, We find that the District Forum has rightly hold the appellant deficient in service and rightly allowed the complaint and given relief to complainant/respondent.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.

7.                     In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.