Date : 11.9.2015
The case of the complainant in short is that one two wheeler (HMATADSSDX HMC HERO MAGISTRO SCOOTER) was purchased at a price of Rs.49,807/- on 19.5.2013 from Sur Motors under proprietorship of Op no.1 Gautam Sur. Now it is alleged that the said scooter has developed its starting problem and for that reason the complainant approached before the OP for its replacement . But the Op misbehaved with the complainant instead of providing any remedy . Ultimately, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for refund of the price Rs.49,807/- plus Rs.7,626/- on account of its registration and for payment of compensation of Rs.1.0 lakh. In order to prove the case certain documents as per firisti produced by the complainant through affidavit in chief.
The Op contested the case by filing written version challenging that the case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and also for want of cause of action and as such the case should be dismissed.
Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed :
ISSUES
1)Whether the case is maintainable for want of cause of action or of non joinder of necessary parties ?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP as alleged?
Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion ?
Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that it is duty and responsibility of the oP for giving service to the complainant in respect of the vehicle during the period of warranty and in this regard there is an agreement dated 19.5.2013 was issued in favour of the complainant. But unfortunately, as and when the complainant approached before them no such service as to the agreement has been rendered. Rather , the complainant was heckled by the oP.
Strong objection raised on behalf of the OP claiming that there is no such occasion as alleged and there is no evidence to prove that the scooter has starting problem . No qualified mechanical engineer has given any expert opinion in order to support the claim of the complainant and as such the case should be dismissed.
We have carefully considered the case of both parties and it appears that the complainant has produced mechanical report dates 20.10.2014 issued by Biswanath Patra that the two wheeler in question having its engine no.JF32AA-GED13769 in the name of the complainant has deep internal mechanical fault with defective electrical circuit and thereby it is dangerous in the street at any moment and may cause casualty. This expert opinion has not been challenged by the OP.
Under the facts and circumstances it is held and decided that the two wheeler in question purchased by the complainant has mechanical problem and the same has not been undertaken by the oP for its proper and effective removal according to warranty. So , the complainant should get appropriate relief so that the two wheeler purchased by her is rendered in its running condition after removal of its mechanical problem as alleged.
Hence ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The OP is hereby directed to remove the mechanical problem of the two wheeler HERO MAGISTRO SCOOTER purchased under invoice dated 19.5.2013 by the complainant in its good and satisfactory running condition within 15 days from the date of production of the same before them and to pay Rs.5,000/- in favour of the complainant on account of compensation and litigation cost within 30 days from the date of this order .
Let a copy of the order be made over to the parties free of cost.
