IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 84/S/2014.                              DATED : 10.01.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI BISHNU ROY,

  S/O Late Ananda Chandra Roy,

  Vill. Panikaur, P.O.- Payachari, 

  P.S.- Rajganj, Dist.- Jalpaiguri.     

O.Ps.             1.                        : HERO MOTOR CORP.,

  34, Community Centre,  

  Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,

  New Delhi, Delhi – 110 057, India. 

                                    2.                     : DARJEELING AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD.,

  Burdwan Road, Siliguri – 734 005,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant purchased a motor bike from the OP No.2 on 08.10.2013 and OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the motor bike.  From the very beginning the complainant had difficulties in running motor bike with respect to head light and fuel problem.  He approached to OP No.2 for adequate remedy, but OP No.2 did not pay any heed to the complaint and to suffice the need of the motor cycle.  The Motor cycle was examined by the OP No.2’ Engineer on several occasions.  As per complainant the defects were :-  i) the shock absorbers were not operating properly, ii) the head lamp was not fitted in correct place, iii) defective oil flow and iv) very poor efficiency was present in the motor cycle.  The complainant is a bonafide consumer while buying and availing services.  The defects were not removed.  Defects were not such which could have been detected on mere looking at the motor bike.  The complainant has photocopies of all relevant documents like tax receipt and insurance papers.  In spite of making complaint before the OP No.2, the grievance was not redressed.  Accordingly, this complaint has been filed before this Forum with the prayer embodied in the complaint. 

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

The OPs which is gathered from the document and written version filed on behalf of the OP No.2 is total denial of incident.  The specific case of the OPs are that the complainant visited the workshop of the OP and after servicing of the aforesaid motor cycle was handed over to the complainant and the complainant also issued satisfactory note on 01.02.2014 certifying that he did not have repair complaint against the workshop and it is also submitted by the OPs that they have always given service to the complainant and the complainant was always satisfied with the service of the OPs.  Accordingly, question of deficiency in service was not arose at all.  The complainant was also visited the workshop of the OPs on 24.0.2014 and expressed his satisfactory about service on Job Card.  Accordingly, there is no merit of allegation of complainant.  The complaint should be dismissed.               

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Tax receipt marked and annexed as Annexure-1.

2.       Insurance Papers marked and annexed as Annexure-2.

3.       The Pre-litigation orders, Annexure-3.

The OPs have filed the following documents :-

1.       Original Job Card dated 27.01.2014 (3 pages) with satisfactory report issued by the complainant.

2.       Original satisfactory note dated 01.02.2014 issued by the complainant.

3.       2 original Job Card dated 24.10.2014 4 (4 pages).

          Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.

OPs have filed evidence–in-chief.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

          OPs have filed written notes of argument.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

The complainant has stated his case on affidavit along with some documents.  The OPs have filed original job cards.  The OPs contention is that after purchase he was unable to drive the motor cycle smoothly due to manufacturing defects i.e., defect of shock absorber, passing of fuel, inadequate

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

operation of headlight.  The above defect of course is able to create trouble.  The complainant has stated on oath about his case.  The documents filed by the complainant shows that he purchased the vehicle from the OP No.2.  The complainant filed job card where from it is seen that complainant approached the OPs on several occasions and OP attended the vehicle and superficially removed the defect.  The document i.e., Job Cards has also been filed by the OP.  These job cards also show that complainant came to the OP with problems of the motor cycle.  But the documents filed by the OP does not show that OP took adequate steps to find out the actual fault of the motor cycle i.e., actual diagnosis of the defect of the motor cycle to show that there was no defect or motor cycle was free from any defect.  Rather, the job card produced by the shows that they did something and got signature of the complainant in the report as per written version in para 9.  The whole crux of the case surfaced in the document of the OPs shows without hesitation that OP did not take appropriate step to diagnosis the cause of defect by an experience Automobile engineer or by an experience mistri of motor cycle. 

The document in our hand shows that complainant went to the OP’s workshop again and again and OP has done some superficial works without trying to find out the root of the problem by an appropriate mechanics.  The OPs’ case and documents shows appropriate non application of mind to the work to reach the root of the problem.

The OP only states that complainant after satisfying put signature as per para 9 of written version and documents.  Those documents were typed in English and the complainant put signature somehow in English.  There is no endorsement that the certificate was read over and explained to Bishnu Roy and Bishnu Roy put signature after understanding the typed words.  The OP has relied his case keeping the feet on this document i.e., certificate with plea that complainant was satisfied.  The OP cannot use this document as a sword to avoid his responsibility towards the purchaser complainant.  Moreover, the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices Department in their order shows insincerity towards the complainant having sufficient scope to mitigate the problem and to solve the dispute.  We are constrained to said that this CA & FBP is discharging their duty in a superficial manner without going to root of the problem and making delay in filing this case. 

Accordingly, before going goodbye to this case, we are fully convinced that the document filed by the OPs can be fully relied upon and which convince us to hold that the OPs sold a defective motor cycle to the complainant for which the complainant has approached before this Forum for getting adequate Redressal

Contd......P/4

-:4:-

and we hold that complainant’s case succeeds and complainant shall get adequate Redressal by adequate compensation by virtue of the power given to this Forum by Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In this case complainant is an illiterate person.  He purchased a motor cycle from the OP No.2.  It is the duty of the OP to pay attention and discharge their duty to their customer complainant.  But the OP did not discharge their duty with due care and attention to the complainant.  So, the OP should give adequate compensation.

In the result, the case succeeds.         

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.84/S/2014 is allowed on contest against the OPs with cost.

The complainant is entitled to get an order of replacement of the motor bike by a new one or get back the amount equal to cost of the motor bike on the date of purchase from the OPs. 

The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and tension from the OPs. 

The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost from the OPs.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to replace the motor cycle of the complainant by a new one of the same model after taking the old one or refund the amount equal to cost of the motor bike on the date of purchase to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by issuing an A/C payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and tension of the complainant, within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by issuing an A/C payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.