Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/181/2023

YOGESH DASS MAHANT - Complainant(s)

Versus

H-D MOTOR COMPANY India PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

AKSHIT MEHTA

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/181/2023
Date of Institution	:	11/4/2023
Date of Decision	:	03/09/2024

 

 

Yogesh Dass Mahant age 42 years son of Baldev Dass Resident of 8418 Belmont DR Avon, IN 46123 (United States of America) and presently residing at Pacca Dera Near Police Station Rori, Sirsa, Haryana, 125201

Complainant

Versus

 

1. H-D Motor Company India Private Limited Having Its Registered Office At 1105 Ashoka Estate 24 Barakhamba Road New Delhi DI 110001, through its Managing Director/CEO.

2. Sandhu Moto Pvt. Ltd., Plot no. 130, Phase-1 Industrial Area, Chandigarh 160002 through its Managing Director/CEO.

3. Gurjeet Singh son of Gurdip Singh, Resident of Khadak Singh farm, Sandholi, Kurukshetra, Haryana, 136128.

 

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs No.1&2 exparte
	:	Sh. Yamin Malik, Advocate for OP No.3

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the complainant is second owner of bike bearing no. HR-41K-6666 model Harley  Davision Fat Bob (hereinafter referred to bas subject bike ) having price of Rs.20 lakh  and the same was being used as a luxurious motor vehicle. Copy of the RC is annexed as Exhibit C-1. Earlier the complainant was using the subject bike  owned by OP No.3  Gurjeet  Singh  but have allowed the complainant to drive the same  being his friend. However, the subject bike met with an accident on 3.10.2021 near Hanspur, District Fatehbad. Thereafter the complainant with the help of OP No.3  approached OP No.2  at their office at Chandigarh for the repair of the subject  bike which was damaged in the accident.  The OP No.2 deputed  its agent Tara Chand to get the repair work done of the subject bike. The expert of OP No.2 assessed the damage caused to the subject bike  in the accident for the replacement  of parts to the tune of Rs.2,13,054.69 with labour expenses of Rs.15,012.00. Thereafter the OP No.3 claimed insurance from the concerned insurance company  in pursuance to invoice job sheet and insurance Exhibit C-2 and C-3.  However, during the pendency  of the repair work  of the subject bike  the complainant purchased the subject bike from Op No.3 for Rs.15 lakh and thereafter all the dealings were done by the complainant with the OPs No.1&2,  in respect of the subject bike which was handed over to OP No.2 immediately after the accident in the month of October 2021  but the OPs No.1&2  kept the subject bike for more than 9 months  and delayed the delivery  of the same to the complainant on the ground that the parts were not available. In this manner,  the OP No. 2 kept the subject bike in its custody  for the purpose of repair till June 2022 and even after the repair,  the subject bike was not in a condition to have speed more than 40 KMPH instead of its maximum speed 170-180 KMPH  and as such the aforesaid act of OPs No.1&2 is deficiency in service.  Moreover, there was bend in the frame/chassis of the subject bike  which has not been removed by the OP No.2 and the conduct of agent of OP No.2 namely Tara Chand  was such that the same was immoral and unethical  as he had asked the complainant to sell the subject bike to OP No.2 at the cost of Rs. 7 lakh i.e. half of the market value and also that the aforesaid demand of the agent of OP No.2 was illegal which was also recorded in the video and the transcription of the video is annexed as Annexure C-5 and the certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is annexed as Annexure C-6.  Further the OP No.2 had given estimate of Rs.1,55,971 as labour charges  as well as cost of the part of the subject bike and as such there is deficiency on the part of OPs No.1&2 and requested to direct OP No.1 &2 to provide new motor bike  and in alternative to pay full amount of the subject bile with interest @18% p.a.  alongwith compensation and litigation cost.  
2. OPs  No.1&2  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 6.6.2023.
3. OP No.3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed his written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability and cause of action. However, it is admitted that the subject bike was given to the complainant and the same met with an accident and thereafter the same was taken to OP No.2 for its repair. It is further admitted that the subject bike was sold to complainant by him after the accident. However, it is denied that the complainant  has cause of action against the answering OP. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. complainant chose not to file rejoinder.

 

2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that  Gurjeet Singh OP No.3  was the first owner of the subject bike  which was registered  in his name and he had given the subject bike to the complainant for drive and complainant while driving the subject bike on 3.10.2021 met with an accident near Hanspur, District Fatehabad  as a result of which the subject bike was damaged and the same was brought to the service centre of OP No.2 for repair  and also at the time  of accident the OP No.3, was the registered owner  of the subject bike  and in the month of June 2022   the subject bike was delivered to  OP No.3 the registered owner of the subject bike who had taken the insurance claim with respect  to the repair cost  as is also evident from Annexure C-2 copy of tax invoice which was issued in the name of OP No.3 and the insurance claim was released in his favour and thereafter the subject bike was sold by OP no3 to the complainant and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for issuance of directions to OPs No.1&2 for replacement of the subject bike or in  alternative refund the cost of the subject bike alongwith compensation and cost of litigation, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant is entitle for the relief as is the case of the complainant or if the complaint is not maintainable against OP No.3  as is the defence of OP No.3.
   2. It is an admitted case of the complainant that at the time of accident  on 3.10.2021, the subject bike was being driven by the him and Gurjeet Singh OP No.3 was registered owner  of the subject bike,  from whom the complainant had  taken the subject bike for driving purpose  and at the time of accident of subject bike the complainant  was not the registered owner of the same. It is further clear from the complaint that the repair work of the subject bike was got done by OP No.3, the registered owner in whose name the tax invoice Exhibit C-2 was issued  by the repairer OP No.2 and even the insurance claim was also disbursed in favour of the OP No.3 and not in favour of the complainant.
   3. Thus, from the foregoing discussion, one thing is clear that as the complainant was not registered owner of the subject bike at the time of accident and the repair of the same was got done by OP No.3  and even insurance claim was disbursed to OP No.3, it is safe to hold that the complainant has no cause of action against the OPs No.1&2 qua the subject bike  as the same was handed over by OP No.2 to the registered owner i.e. OP No.3 who had not raised any objection qua defect in the subject bike  .
   4. Moreover, the complainant is seeking replacement of the new motorcycle or in the alternative refund of the cost of the same without proving on record if there was any inherent defect and also that he was owner of the subject bike at the time of accident. Even when it  stands proved on record that at the time of accident as well as during repair work the complainant was not owner of the subject bike rather he had purchased the same from the erstwhile owner i.e. Op No.3 after accrual of cause of action in favour of the OP No.3, hence, it is clear that the complainant is not consumer qua Ops No.1&2.     
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 03/09/2024 mp			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member