Haryana

Kurukshetra

44/2017

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hero Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Rishi Pal

25 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.44 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.02.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:25.05.2018.

Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, R/o Village Kheri Markanda, P.O. Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Hero Moto Corpt. Ltd. Plot No.3, Sector-10, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL-Haridwar-249403 Uttrakhand through its Managing Director/Director.
2. VPS Motors, through Authorized Dealer, Hero Moto Corpt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Dhanwanti Devi Building, Railway Amin Road, Kurukshetra-136118 through its Authorized Dealer. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Rishi Pal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. B.L.Bansal, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

                Op No.1 exparte. 

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Anil Kumar against Hero Moto Corp. Ltd. and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a motor-cycle marka Splender Plus bearing registration No.HR07X-2479 from the Op No.2 and the said motor-cycle was got insured.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said motor-cycle was babbling (Unbalanced) and was not giving proper average of KMs.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 and complained about the defects of motor-cycle to him but the Op No.2 failed to repair the said motor-cycle.  It is further alleged that a written application was also filed on 13.10.2016 to Op No.2 to remove babbling/wobbling tyre problem and Op No.2 changed the tyre and thereafter on 24.10.2016 changed the wheel of the motor-cycle but the above-said defects were not removed from the said motor-cycle.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to replace the defective motor-cycle with the new one and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 18.04.2017.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that on the complaint of complainant, both the tyres of the vehicle were changed by the answering Op to the entire satisfaction of complainant and the same was reduced in writing by the complainant in his own writing to the effect that he is satisfied with his vehicle and that the notice sent through his Advocate has been withdrawn and he has no complaint with the answering Op; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the motor-cycle in question was purchased by the complainant from the Op No.2.  The main dispute between the parties is that the motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR07X-2479 purchased by the complainant became defective from the very beginning with the problem of babbling (Unbalanced) and was not giving proper average.  The complainant approached the Ops to remove babbling but the defects could not be removed by the Ops.  The complainant has placed reliance upon the documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 in this regard.  The contention of Op No.2 is that all the defects from the motor-cycle were removed by Op No.2.  The Op No.2 has placed reliance upon the job-sheet Ex.R1 in this regard.  There is no doubt that as per job-sheet Ex.R1, the complainant gave in writing that he is satisfied with the repair work, however, this document is not reliable one, so, it cannot be relied upon.   From the perusal of record available on the file, it is clear that the motor-cycle in question became defective and the defects could not be removed by the Ops.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it repaired from the Ops.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed partly and we direct the OPs to repair the motor-cycle in question and to rectify the defects of the motor-cycle free of cost.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:25.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member