BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:29 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 28.01.2015.
Date of Decision:18.11.2016
Puneet son of Ashok Kumar, resident of Suglan Ki Dhani, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Jaya Automobiles, Meham Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory.
- Hero Motocrop Ltd., F-126, Katwaria Sarai, Opp. Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 through its Regional Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Jitender Pal Tanwar, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased a motor cycle Splendor Plus bearing registration No. HR-16N/4537 from the showroom of OP no. 1, after paying the consideration amount in cash on dated 21.02.2014. It is alleged that in the month of September 2014, the aforesaid motorcycle got defective and stops working properly. It is alleged that he lodged the complaint with OP no. 1 about the defects. It is alleged that after passing time period of one month, the defect was removed temporarily by the OP no. 1 and the motorcycle again became defective with the same problem in the Month of October 2014, then again complainant visited several times at the showroom of OP no. 1 but the defect was not removed. He served a legal notice dated 19.12.2014. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has been given proper and satisfactory service as and when he visited the authorized service centre of the respondent as per terms and conditions of the company. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.07.2015.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-11.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the motor cycle of the complainant has having the defect of mobil leakage. The complainant approached the Ops to get removed the defect. The defect of mobil leakage has not been removed permanently. He submitted that the motor cycle is having manufacturing defect.
8. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the allegation of the complainant are false and baseless. He contended that the motor cycle was brought for service to the OPs time to time. He referred the summary of visit Annexure R-1. On 23.09.2014 the complainant brought the motor cycle for free service and then on 16.10.2014 for general repair after running of the said vehicle 11913 K.M. and 12342 K.M. respectively. After that on 08.04.2015 the motor cycle was brought to the Ops for accidental repair. Till then the motor cycle had run 15433 K.M. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the record. The complainant has produced the copy of free service coupons from Annexure P-7 to Annexure P-11. As per Annexure R-1 there is no mention of any mobil leakage upto 3 services till then the motor cycle had done 9500 KM. The complainant has not produced any cogent evidence in support of his contention that the motor cycle in question is having the manufacturing defect as contended by the complainant. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 18.11.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
