Delhi

North East

CC/114/2019

Deepak Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Himgiri Automobile Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 114/19

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Chattar Singh R/o House No. D-1/535/32 Street No.13, Near Durga Mandir, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Himgiri Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd. B-28, East Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road Shahdara, Delhi-110093   Hero Motorcorp Ltd. 34 Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110053	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

16.12.19 23.12.22 03.01.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

                                                                     ORDER

      Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 14.06.19 the Complainant purchased a Hero Motorcorp motorcycle passion X amounting to Rs. 73,400/- by paying total cash having Registration no. DL 14SK 1671, Engine no. JA06ETKGCO2860 chassis no. MBLIAW120KGC00748 from Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant submitted that after purchasing the bike the handle of the bike goes to the left side and the engine makes different kinds of sounds and the Complainant took his motorcycle to the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 where they tried to fix the issue of engine sound but the problem could not be fixed. The Complainant submitted that he had to take his motorcycle to the service centre of Opposite Party many times and had to leave his motorcycle there for many days due to which he faced many problems. On 19.10.19 again because of engine sound problem he visited the service centre of Opposite Party where they took his bike and registered a complaint vide complaint no. 10375.1019.1478 and on 21.10.19 he lodged a complaint on customer care of Opposite Party vide complaint no. 1687757 and the officials of Opposite Party called him again and again and did not gave him the trial of the vehicle and tried to took his signature on the ok documents. The Complainant stated he was of the apprehension that the engine of the said motorcycle can be seized anytime, and which can cause an accident and for which he requested the Opposite Party No.1 to change the engine of the motorcycle but they refused. The Complainant also sent a written complaint via speed post to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 on 17.11.19. The Opposite Party No.1 returned the motorcycle after replacing the ring to the Complainant. The Complainant stated that the day he purchased motorcycle, same was not running properly and the Opposite Party could not fix the problem in the said vehicle even after making several visits to the Opposite Party. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 73,400/- i.e. the cost of motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation charges.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 to contest the case despite service of notice on 21.01.20. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 20.04.22.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant has purchased the vehicle in question in good condition and there was no fault in the vehicle. As and when the Complainant visited the office and workshop of Opposite Party No.1 he was treated as a valuable customer and satisfied him in all means.
4. Opposite Party No.1 stated that it has supplied a brand new vehicle, which was duly and thoroughly checked by the Complainant before taking the delivery and only after the complete satisfaction of the Complainant, the vehicle was delivered to him. That any facts stated to the contrary by the Complainant herein are wrong and denied. The Complainant is put to strict proof of the averments as made by him in the present complaint. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the vehicle has at all times been delivered by Opposite Party No.1 in good condition, however, the same shall be taken into the consideration, that the condition of the vehicles also depends a lot upon the usage and driving habits of the user.
5. It is further submitted that as per its service commitments always helped and welcomed the Complainant for every need and requirement and had even helped the Complainant, when the Complainant had approached another workshop. That it is specifically denied that the Complainant was mislead by the workers of Opposite Party no.1 and that the services were denied by the workers of Opposite Party no.1.
6. HencHence, the Opposite Party No.1 denies the claims as raised by the Complainant of any default or deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and further denies the monetary claims as raised by the Complainant towards any alleged harassment being faced by him.
7. Opposite Party No.1 has prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no cause of action arose against the Opposite Party No.1 and the same is not maintainable against the Opposite Party No.1

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

8. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party No.1 and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint

Evidence of the Complainant

9. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

10. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Anil Kushwaha, AR for Opposite Party No.1 having its office at A-9/1, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Near Dilshad Garden Metro Station, Delhi-110095 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

 

 

Arguments and conclusion

11. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Parties and we have also perused the file. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle on 14.06.19 and paid Rs. 73,400/- for the same. The said bike was having problem with engine within few days after the purchase of the said vehicle. He approached Opposite Party to fix the problem in the bike many times but Opposite Party failed to rectify the defect in the motorcycle. Opposite Party No.1 is not denying the fact that Complainant visited their service centre on various occasion to fix the problem. In support of his claim Complainant file various bills issued by the Opposite Party for repairing the vehicle, in spite of visiting Opposite Party service centre on 11.08.19, 26.08.19, 17.11.19, 01.11.20, 22.11.20, 20.12.20, 20.02.21 & 24.02.21 problem in the vehicle was not fixed and  the vehicle was not running properly. So, there is a deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
12. In view of the above discussion, complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on account of  deficiency in service, mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 

 

13. Order announced on 03.01.23.

                   Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President