Delhi

North East

CC/133/2023

LAXMI DATT PANDEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

FG MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 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.133/23                                   

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Laxmi Datt Pandey R/o H.No. 5, St. No. 17, Biharipur Extn., Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s FG Motors (Sub Dealer of SD Motors) No. 1, Block A, Zero Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

15.05.23 27.02.24 06.05.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

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

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a Bike bearing model no. TVS REDION 110 ES MAG BSVI2021 from F G Motors,a sub dealer of SD Motors on 06.02.22 for a sum of Rs. 73,250/-. On 02.03.22 bike was delivered to Complainant vide challan bearing no. DC 0883 for payment. It is stated that on 02.03.22 the clutch plate of said bike got damaged which is under warranty period and thereafter Complainant took the bike to service centre of Opposite Party. It is alleged that Opposite Party told the Complainant that they do not have clutch plate under warranty and when  Complainant took his bike to other service centre, the other service centre considered it under warranty.Then on 13.04.22 the same problemoccurred and the other service centre did it underwarranty again. It is stated that the problem arose third time on 08.06.22 and the service centre told that gear box and clutch bowl are also bad and parts were not available then the bikeremained there for one week. On 19.08.22 Complainant visited service centre again then they told the same problem. On 21.08.22 Complainant went to service centrebut they told same problem thereafter Complainant registered complaint at Consumer Helpline by mode of NCHAPP and then Opposite Party did it under warranty but the same problemisoccurred again on 30.10.22 theydid its work under warranty. The Complainant had purchased new bike and six times problem occurred in bike due to which Complainant faced lot of problems. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 80,000/- for mental harassment and he also prayed for the cost of bike in question of Rs. 92,000/- (included interest of financer) as he does not want the defected bike in question.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.08.23.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one bike from the Opposite Party dealer. It is  alleged that as the the clutch plate of said bike got damaged several times  under warranty period but the Opposite Party did not repair the same on the pretext that theclutch plate was not under warranty or the required parts are not available. When Complainant took his bike to other service centre, the other service centre considered it under warranty. The negligent conduct of the Opposite Party caused mental suffering as his grievance was not attended and terms of warranty were breached. The Complainant has prayed for the compensation for mental harassment and for the refund of defective bike as the same has got damaged several times in short span.
5. The Complainant has relied upon copies of certain documents such as Purchase invoice and delivery challan issued by the Opposite Party which clearly show  that the subject bike was purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party. The Complainant has also filed copy of tax invoices issued by the other service centre i.e. Garima Automobiles in support of his case. The perusal of the said documents reveals that the central assembly manual warranty was there and the repair was done under the warranty.
6. It has been stated on oath by the Complainant that he approached the Opposite Party for the repair of the clutch under warranty but Opposite Party did not repair the same on the pretext that the clutch plate was not under warranty or the required parts are not available while the repairs were done by the other service centre under warranty and this fact is well corroborated by the Tax invoices of other service centre as has been relied upon by the Complainant.
7. Since the Opposite Party i.e. the dealer has failed to enter appearance despite service, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the Complainant which is testified on oath.
8. The Complainant has alleged that the subject bike was defective and also prayed for the refund of defective bike as the same has got damaged several times in short span. In this regards, it is worth to note that the Complainant has neither made the manufacturer party in the complaint nor proved the manufacturing defect; therefore, the said prayer for refund cannot be considered, hence, disallowed.
9. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the Complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Party ,we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party which is M/s FG Motors (Sub Dealer of SD Motors), the dealer has been deficient in services by not providing the satisfactory services to the Complainant by not repairing  the bike in question under warranty, causing mental harassment.
10. Thus, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the Opposite Party i.e. M/s FG Motors (Sub Dealer of SD Motors), to pay to the Complainant Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- litigation cost along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
11. Order announced on 06.05.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

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