Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/365/2017

RAHUL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HONDA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

Himanshu Beotra

10 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No               166/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution       19-08-2017

 Date of Decision          10-02-2018

 

Rahul Gupta,

S/O Late Sh.Ashok Kumar Gupta,

R/O H.No.51 B/5 Nanak Nagar,

Jammu-180004.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

1.Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India (Pvt.)Ltd.

  Through its Concerned Head Commercial  Complex 11,

  Sector 49-50 Golf Course Extension Road,

  Gurgaon,Haryana(122018)India.

2. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India (Pvt.)Ltd.

    Through its Regional Head A 105,1^st Floor Iris Tech Park,

   Sector 48,Sohna Road,Gurgaon,Haryana-122018(India).

3.Lahori Bikes Pvt.Ltd.Through its Branch Manager,

  Malik Market National Highway,Bye Pass Jammu,J&K-180015.

 

                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

      

 Mr.Himanshu Beotra,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for Ops .

 

 

ORDER

                        Grievance of complainant, as disclosed in the complaint is that he had purchased a Activa 4G Scooty(SCV110H) from OP3,on, 09/05/2017for a sale consideration of Rs.51,988/ and also got an insurance to the tune of Rs.6585/copy of invoice and insurance is annexed as Annexure/A&B and at the time of purchase of said scooty,it was assured by OP3 that the product after sale services are of the highest standard  and it will be maintained throughout. Further allegation of complainant is that after 5/6 days of  purchase of scooty he was facing problems with the product and while driving the same was being forcefully driven on one side of the road, thereby affecting the balance on the road and on approaching the OP3 for the said defect, certain spare parts of the scooty were replaced under warranty, however unfortunately the problem in the scooty still persisted and thereafter the complainant again approached OP3 numerous times and also met the TSM for removing the said defect. Allegation of complainant is that despite several efforts,OP3 showed no concern towards the grievance of complainant and rather opted to dodge the helpless complainant  by giving one or the other implausible explanation for the improper functioning of the product. It is pertinent to state that merely replacing of spare parts does not dissolve the Ops from their liability to make the product in best standarised workable condition that is required to be maintained by them.Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant issued legal notice to Ops,but did not yield any fruitful result, hence the complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays for either replacement of scooty or refund of cost of scooty and in addition prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/under different heads.

                       Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but they did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version was closed vide order dated 16/10/2017 and complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

                 The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Bikramjeet Singh Sodhi and Raghav Changotra,respectively. The complainant has placed on record copy of retain invoice, copy of insurance policy and copy of legal notice.

                     We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                Briefly stated facts of the case are that; complainant had purchased a Activa 4G Scooty(SCV110H) from OP3,on, 09-05-2017for a sale consideration of Rs.51,988/and also got an insurance to the tune of Rs.6585/ and at the time of purchase of said scooty,it was assured by OP3 that the product after sale services are of the highest standard  and it will be maintained throughout. Further allegation of complainant is that after 5/6 days of  purchase of scooty he was facing problems with the product and while driving the same was being forcefully driven on one side of the road, thereby affecting the balance on the road and on approaching the OP3 for the said defect, certain spare parts of the scooty were replaced under warranty, however unfortunately the problem in the scooty still persisted and thereafter the complainant again approached OP3 numerous times and also met the TSM for removing the said defect. Allegation of complainant is that despite several efforts,OP3 showed no concern towards the grievance of complainant and rather opted to dodge the helpless complainant  by giving one or the other implausible explanation for the improper functioning of the product. It is pertinent to state that merely replacing of spare parts does not dissolve the Ops from their liability to make the product in best standarised workable condition that is required to be maintained by them. Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant issued legal notice to Ops,but did not yield any fruitful result.

                  The complainant in his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Bikramjeet Singh Sodhi and Raghav Changotra,respectively have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by his own duly sworn affidavit and affidavits of Bikramjeet Singh Sodhi and Raghav Changotra,respectively,  so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complaint.

                      This is a case of deficiency in service. The OPs despite of service of notice sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent their case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                 After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                       Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and opposite party No.1&2 are directed to either replace the scooty with a new one of same price or refund Rs.51,988/ (i.e. the cost of scooty in question) to the complainant. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/ for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/ .The OP1&2 shall comply the order within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                   Khalil Choudhary

                                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                     President

Announced                                            District Consumer Forum

10/02/2018                                                        Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                               

.               

 Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member