Haryana

StateCommission

A/394/2016

SACHIN GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.L.MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           394 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       06.05.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         02.02.2017

 

Sachin Garg son of Sh. Rajpal Garg, resident of Village Dhand, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                             Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      K.L. Motors, Head Office, SCO 317, Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal-136027, Haryana (India) through its authorized signatory/Dealer Sh. Ravi Singhal, resident of Kaithal.

 

2.      Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited, Mahindra Tower, 2-A, Bikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                         

Present:              Sachin Garg-appellant in person

                             (Service upon respondent No.1 already effected with vide order dated October 19^th,2016)

                             Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the respondent No.2  

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated March 29^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, was partly allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“9.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the opposite parties to replace the engine bearing No.VPEDG008324 of the vehicle Mahindra Bike Centuro bearing registration no.HR08Q-6222 with the new one of the same description and further to pay Rs.2000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  The complainant is also directed that after the replacement of the engine, he will get the engine number changed in the RC within one month.  Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable..….”  

         

2.      Sachin Garg-complainant noticed some defects in his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR08Q-6222.  He took his motorcycle to the opposite party No.1.  The opposite parties failed to remove the defects.  By filing the complaint against the opposite parties before the District Forum, he prayed for replacement of motorcycle with new one and Rs.50,000/- as harassment.

3.      The complaint was partly accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the opposite parties as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5.      It is not in dispute that the complainant noticed some defects in the motorcycle during warranty period.  The opposite parties failed to remove the defects.  The District Forum appointed Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kurukshetra to inspect the motorcycle, who submitted his report as under:-

          “1.     After inspection, we find following defects:-

          Gear Shifting problem and sound.

          2.      Having vibration when we give accelerator (abnormal vibration)

          3.      Having abnormal sound in silencer.

          4.      Poor Pick Up.

          5.      K.M.P.L is impossible due to above mentioned defect (not calculated).”

 

6.      A reading of aforesaid report shows that the defects in the motorcycle pertain to engine only.  In this situation, the replacement of the engine would suffice the purpose.  There was no justification to replace the motorcycle as prayed by the complainant. The District Forum vide impugned order directed the opposite parties to replace the engine of the motorcycle with the new one of the same description and to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation. This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

Announced 02.02.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK