Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
Complaint No. : 20/2017.
Instituted on : 22.11.2017.
Decided on : 29.01.2019.
Shahrukh Khan son of Shri Talib, aged 23 years, R/o Village Akera Tehsil Nuh District Nuh.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Hero Motorcorp Ltd. 34 Community Centre, Banssant Lok, Vasant Vihar New Delhi-110057 through its Manager.
- Sunil Motors delhi Alwar Road Near Bus Stand Nuh (Sales Manager/agency owner)
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. URMIL BENIWAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Saleem Ahmed, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Abdul Rehman, counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
O.P. no. 1 already Exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint that complainant had purchased a Motorcycle Model Passion-Pro on dated 05.04.2015 vide registration No. HR-27F-2820, Chesis No. A19789, Engine No. A14334 Model no. 03/2015 and the opposite party had issued warranty book no. 376427 for 5 years or 70,000/- K.M. warranty of engine. But after some time the engine starting problem and when the complainant approached to opposite party, the opposite party has flatly refused to service of engine. Complainant had repaired the said motorcycle and the total expenses of repaired motorcycle is Rs. 4200/-. Hence, this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund of Rs. 56,000/- alongwith a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account harassment, mental agony and also liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- for ligation charges.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties. Opposite Party no. 2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not follow the rule during the driving of the motorcycle and the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Hence complaint is not entitled for any claim and complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP closed the evidence on dated 21.12.2018.
4. Arguments heard and filed perused.
5. The only point of dispute is objection taken by the opposite party is that though the vehicle was in warranty period but the same was not operated as per the guidelines issued by the manufacturing company. No evidence to this effect has been placed on the file by the respondents to support their objection. As such this objection is negated. Hence, the present complaint succeeds and we pass an award against the op no 1 and op no 2 jointly and severaly of Rs. 3493/- with interest @ 9% per annum from07/11/17(Date of issue of bill)till realization. Further, we award of Rs. 5000/- towards litigation and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on: 29.01.2019 (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
(Urmil Beniwal)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
