DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                    C.C.NO. 23 OF 2022

                                                                              Date of Filing: 14.07.2022

                    Date of Order: 06.03.2023

Sri Susanta Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Niranjan Sahu,

S/o Champeswar Kanhar,

At-Phulbani Sahi, PO- Contract Pada

PS- Phulbani Town

District-Kandhamal                      …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

Commercial Complex-II, Sector-49-50,

Gulf Course Extension Road,

Gurgaon, Haryana - 122018

2. Proprietor, Bandana Automotive Pvt. Ltd,,

Circular Road, Phulbani,

District-Kandhamal PIN-762001 …………………….. Opp. Parties.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                        Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahoo, Advocate

For O.P. No.1        : Mr.Bijaya Kumar Pattnayak and Associates Advocate

For O.P. No.2       : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate        

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Susanta Kumar Sahu has filed this case U/s 35 of CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not removing the defects and praying therein direction to the Opposite Parties to properly identify and remove the defects from the Motor Cycle and in their failure to remove the defects change the motor cycle and to provide him with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs. 50, 000/- for causing deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- for causing mental, physical and financial harassment and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant purchased a motor cycle from OP No. 2 of Honda Shine-125. When the complainant drove the motor cycle on the next day of purchase, found that the back wheel was jumping and the handle of the motor cycle was vibrating. The complainant went to OP No. 2 and he was advised that it will be solved automatically after first service. On 24.11.2021, the first servicing was done and the technicians of OP No. 2 told him that it will be set alright. Again on 24.03.2022, the complainant went for second servicing and as the defect was not rectified, he requested the OP No. 2 to remove the defect. As the problem was not solved after second servicing, he again went to OP No. 2 and requested OP No. 2 to solve the problem and even after keeping the bike for 3 days, he could not remove the defect and returned the motor cycle. After repeated requests, the OP No. 2 could not remove the defects for which the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
2. After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their Advocate but preferred not to file any written statement or raised objection to the allegations made against them. On the basis of interim application, the OP No. 2 undertook the repairing of the vehicle and the motor cycle was delivered to the complainant after removing the defects. But after some days, the same problem again cropped up.
3. It is settled principle of law that where the Opposite Parties appear but do not challenge the allegations raised against them, it is deemed to have been admitted by them. In the present case, the Opposite Parties appeared, the OP No. 2 complied the interim direction of the Commission, but in spite of repeated attempts to remove the defects it recurred again and again within a very short span of time. The complaint is supported by his evidence in shape of affidavit. Even though the OPs have received the copy of evidence filled in shape of affidavit, they have not filed any counter affidavit to rebut the evidence led by the complainant. As the evidence led by the complainant remained unchallenged and un-rebutted, we have no other option but to accept the allegations raised against the Opposite Parties.
4. It is settled principles of law that the manufacturer has to replace the goods if it is found to be defective from the time of manufacturing and is incapable of being remedied. In the present case from the second day of purchase, the motor cycle developed the defects and in spite of repeated attempts made by the OP No. 2, the defects could not be removed for which it needs to be replaced.
5. As the OP No. 2 has frequently attended to the complains and has tried his best to remove the defects inherent in the vehicle, we feel that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2 and hence the order.

O R D E R

          The complaint petition is allowed in contest against the Opposite Parties in part. The OP No. 2 is directed to replace the motor cycle in question with a new one and reimburse the cost thereof from OP No. 1 and take back the defective motor cycle from the complainant. If the OP No. 2 fails to replace the motor cycle, he is directed to refund the cost of motor cycle to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OP No. 1 is directed to reimburse the cost of the motor cycle to OP No. 2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own cost. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

                                                         Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 6^th day of March 2023  in the presence of the parties.  

     MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT