In brief, the present complaint has been filed by Manjinder Singh the titled complainant against the titled opposite parties aggrieved at their first having sold him One New but Defective Motor Cycle on 28.08.2017 @ Rs.55,000/- through the OP1 Sub Vendor of Make Splendor-Plus with M/Oil-Leak Engine-Joins that could not be set, in right order, in spite of repeated repairs/trials at the respective Work-Shops of both the OP1 Sub-Vendor & the OP2 Vendor and then flat Refusal by both the OP to Repair Or to Replace Or to Refund its invoice price despite his repeated requests/reminders etc. and thus prompted the present complaint seeking/praying for directives to the opposite parties to refund the invoice amount (Rs.55,000/-) of the Motor Cycle, in full, to him with interest @ 12% PA besides to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for having inflicted upon him physical harassment, mental pain cum agony, in the interest of justice.
2. The complainant, in support of the contents cum allegations as made out in his complaint, has filed his Affidavit (Ex.C1) along with other documents in evidence as: i) Cash Receipt (Ex.C2) dated 28.08.2017 for Rs.55,000/- as issued by the OP1 Sub-Dealer/Vendor, ii) Copy (Ex.C3) Coupon Free First Service; iii) Copy (Ex.C4) Ownership Record Data iv) Copy (Ex.C5) Coupon Free 2nd Service; v) Copy Free Repair Invoice 13.11.2017 (Ex.C6) by the OP2 Vendor; vi) Copy OP1 (Ex.C7) Cash-memo 16.11.2017 Rs.50/- for Engine Join; vii) Copy (Ex.C8) Insurance Cover Note dated 04.09.2017 and viii) Affidavit (by way of Additional Evidence allowed on 18.07.2022) of Kamaljit Singh (Ex.C9) care Rupa Auto Repair, Gurdaspur deposing that the M/Cycle (in question) has been defective beyond repairs as it suffers Leaking Engine-Joins & Gear Box.
3. Upon summoning through notice, the opposite party vendors appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply/statement on 19.02.2018 pleading all their objections preliminary, in general and also on merits. The OP Vendors have preliminary addressed the complaint as not maintainable without assigning any reason for the same. On merits, the OP vendors have denied all the contents/ allegations as made out in the present complaint and have in turn, alleged that the M/cycle was not being properly used hence some minor leakage etc but the complainant has been interested only in replacement of the vehicle that was not feasible at this stage i.e. after Six Months of Sale of the Vehicle. The OP vendors filed their affidavit (18.05.2018) Ex.OP1/1 and closed their evidence.
4. It shall be pertinent here to mention that after having filed joint reply on behalf of the OP1 and the OP2 on 19.02.2018, their learned counsel withdrew his Vakalatnama (Power of Attorney) for the OP1 sub-dealer on 04.02.2019 and since then none has appeared on behalf of the OP1 who was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 08.07.2019. However, from 01.09.2021 on wards the counsel stopped appearing for the OP2 Vendor also and who has since been marked 'Absent' during the present proceedings.
5. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scale and scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the opposing litigants in the light of the arguments as advanced by their respective learned counsels representing the respective sides. We observe the instant transaction as an active case of miss-selling at the end of the titled opposite parties; the OP vendors have failed to prove that the M/cycle was repaired to the defect-free level in fine working order through some cogent evidence and never had any irreparable/incurable defect. There's no deposition/affidavit of engineer/technician posted at their respective workshops. No satisfactory reply could be forwarded pertaining to the Registration Certificate of the M/cycle and even the temporary registration (as claimed) was not produced. Both the opposite parties preferred to stay absent one after the other giving rise to the all time probable 'judicial presumption' that they had no cogent defense to prosecute. The Vendors cannot escape the 'product-liability' as enacted/legislated afresh under Chapter VI Sections 82-86 of the CPA, 2019 by taking refuge - such-like unfair trade practices as: delivery of defective machinery/products/vehicles etc.
6. The OP vendors have failed to explain as to why the present complaint stood filed against them by the one local respectable resident along with affidavit of another local technical technician of the city. Further, it is well known to all that defective vehicles are nuisance and accident-prone on road.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party vendors to refund the full receipted amount vide (Ex.C2) i.e. Rs.55,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% PA from the date of sale besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as cost and compensation within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.
8. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (B.S.Matharu)
OCT. 21, 2022. Member.
YP.
