Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

                    Complainant Rikhiram Chhatria has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not removing the defects from his newly purchased motorcycle in spite of repeated complaints and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the defective motorcycle with a new one or to return back the price of the bike with interest @ 18% per annum and to exempt the complainant for further repayment of EMI to OP No. 3 and 4, pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and for mental and physical and financial agony and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant purchased one Hero Glamour motorcycle from OP No. 3 on 15.07.2020 which was financed by OP No. 4 and the loan amount was Rs. 88,000/- which includes the charge of registration and insurance of the vehicle. Shortly after purchase of the motorcycle, the motorcycle developed problems and there was starting problem which was brought to the knowledge of OP No. 3. The OP No. 3 sorted out the problem for some days and again the same problem started. In this process, the complainant frequently went to the OP No. 3 as the vehicle was frequently giving starting problem. In spite of repeated attempts, the OP No. 3 could not remove the problems and finally sent the motor cycle to OP No. 2 for necessary checkup and repair. But, he also failed to repair the motorcycle. The sole problem of the complainant was that the vehicle is giving starting problem and after repair, it is running for some days and again the problem came up. The OP No. 2 and 3 attempted to remove the defects but the defect was not removed. Therefore, he approached the OP No. 1, 2 and 3 either to remove the defect or return back his money and pay the remaining EMI to OP No. 4. As the OP No. 1,2 and 3 did not response, he filed this case before the commission for relief as discussed above.

2.           Notice was duly served on all the OPs. But, none filed their written statement except OP No. 4.

3.           The OP No. 4 in his written statement stated that he has financed the motorcycle and the allegation against him are false and as the case relates to manufacturing defect between the manufacturer and the complainant, the case against him be dismissed with costs.

4.           As the OP No. 1, 2 and 3 did not challenge the allegations raised against them, it is deemed to have admitted by them.

5.           It is seen from the documents on record that the motorcycle was taken by the complainant to the OP No. 2 once and to OP No. 3 on several occasions to remove the defects from the motorcycle. A last chance was given to the OP No. 3 to rectify the defects during the pendency of the case. But the motorcycle developed the same problem after one week. So, it is crystal clear that the motorcycle was having inherent problems as alleged by the complainant and as the OP No. 1, 2 and 3 had not disputed this allegation, there is no doubt that the motorcycle in question is defective one and the OP No. 1, 2 and 3 could not remove the defect in spite of their best efforts. Therefore, in our considered view, the motorcycle was having inherent manufacturing defect in capable of being remedied and needs to be replaced and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against OP No. 1, 2 and 3 and dismissed against OP No. 4 on contest. The OP No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to replace the motorcycle with a new one of the same make and model and in the event of their failure to replace the motorcycle shall refund the full cost of the motorcycle with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till it is actually refunded to the complainant. The OP No. 1, 2 and 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- (Thirty Thousand) for deficiency in service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.