Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.     Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased aHero Super Splendor motor cycle from OP No.1 on 13.12.2015 on payment of Rs.55,134/- as consideration. It is alleged inter alia that the motor cycle was under warranty period for three years but three days after the purchase the complainant found there was carbon emailing and mobile leakage from the engine of the vehicle. Complainant brought the matter to the notice of OP No.1 who assured to solve the problem in first and second service. It is alleged that the problem did not end there but it continued. Complainant made contact with OP No.1 regarding carbon emitting and mobile leakage from the engine and OP No.1 has to change the head block piston of the said motor cycle to stop mobile leakage. During first service OP No.1 agreed to change the head block piston and head of the motor cycle but could not keep their promise. During first servicing OP No.1 could not succeed to stop the mobile leakage from the motor cycle. Since the vehicle could not be repaired well, the complaint was filed by the complainantalleging deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

4.     OP No.1 filed written version stating that the allegation made by the complainant is totally false. He pleaded that the motor cycle was purchased in good condition. The minor defect of the motor cycle was rectified by OP No.1 with free of cost but to the satisfaction of the complainant. There is no commitment from the side of OP No.1 to the complainant as alleged. OP No.1 has averred that complainant has availed three free service in another workshop but not in OP No.1’s service center.On the other hand, OP No.1 made allegation against the complainant that the complainant has not followed the guidelines made in the service book relating to maintenance of the motor cycle  in question.  So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.     After hearingboth the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

The complaint petition is allowed in favour of the complainant and the OP no.1 is directed to replace the block piston, head and all related parts to check mobile leakage from the above noted motor cycle within 15 (Fifteen) days from receipt of this order and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as compensation, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only towards mental agony and pain, Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for litigation expenses, which will be pay within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which interest @9% p.a. will be paid to the complainant for the delay in complying of this order.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum passed the impugned order without perusing any materials on record. According to him the motor cycle has been sold in good condition and the free service has been rendered as per the service manual. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these aspects. It is the case of OP No.1 that they have done the service during warranty period and after warranty period also. Therefore, it is submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.     It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant from OP No.1. It appears that there are free services given at different intervals to the vehicle of the complainant. But the complainant has not produced any paper to show that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. On the other hand, OP No.1 had produced all the documents to show that the motor cycle during warranty has been repaired free of cost and satisfaction note has been obtained from the complainant.

9.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the learned District Forum have not applied the judicial mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

10.   The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

      Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.