Haryana

Sonipat

CC/447/2015

Sunil Kumar S/o Sube Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Harinder Rana

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.447 of 2015

                                Instituted on:07.12.2015

                                Date of order:20.07.2016

 

Sunil Kumar son of Sube Singh, resident of village Gharwal, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.  

                                                ...Complainants.

     Versus

1.M/s Krishna Enterprises near Ch. Devi Lal Stadium, Gohana-131301, Authorised dealer Hero Moto Corp Ltd. through its owner/branch Manager.

2. Hero Moto Corp Ltd. at 69^th KM Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Dharuhera-122100 Haryana through its CEO/Managing Director/Vice President-Sales & Service.

3. Hero Moto Corp Ltd. at 37^th KM Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon-122001 through its CEO/Managing Director/Vice President-Sales & Service.

4.Hero Moto Corp Ltd. at plot no.3, Sector 10, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL-Haridwar-249403 Uttrakhand through its CEO/Managing Director/Vice President-Sales & Service.

                                                ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. Harinder Rana Adv. for complainants.

           Sh. KK Malik, Adv. for respondents.

BEFORE-     NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

            SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

            J.L. Gupta……………………………………………………………Member

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased new Hero Motorcycle make Splendor on 22.4.2013 from the respondent no.1 for Rs.45,500/-.  After use of the said vehicle, it was noticed by the complainant that there were many defects in the vehicle.  Despite regular service of the said motor cycle, the respondents did not properly removed the defects.  On 9.5.2015 many manufacturing defects were observed and the complainant has visited the respondent’s service centre for proper repair, but of no use.  The respondents have supplied a low quality motor cycle and due to this, the said motor cycle is not running properly in the warranty period.  The complainant has requested the respondents either to replace the said defective motor cycle with new one or to refund the cost of the same, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the warranty is given only of certain parts and in case of manufacturing defect is found,  then the defective parts are to be removed free of costs. When the complainant visited the respondent no.1 for repair of the vehicle, he was attended properly and all the defects were removed free of costs.  There is no manufacturing defect in the motor cycle and the same is running properly.  The complainant is a teacher and travels from his village Garhwal to village Pugthala and back covering about 60 kms and he does not handle the motor cycle properly and drive the same carelessly.  The genuine parts are fitted in the motor cycle.  The allegation of cheating or harassment as alleged by the complainant are altogether wrong and false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is  not entitled for any relief & compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued his case vehemently by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents that the complainant has purchased new Hero Motorcycle make Splendor on 22.4.2013 from the respondent no.1 for Rs.45,500/-.  After use of the said vehicle, it was noticed by the complainant that there were many defects in the vehicle.  Despite regular service of the said motor cycle, the respondents did not properly removed the defects.  On 9.5.2015 many manufacturing defects were observed and the complainant has visited the respondent’s service centre for proper repair, but of no use.  The respondents have supplied a low quality motor cycle and due to this, the said motor cycle is not running properly in the warranty period.  The complainant has requested the respondents either to replace the said defective motor cycle with new one or to refund the cost of the same, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the warranty is given only of certain parts and in case of manufacturing defect is found,  then the defective parts are to be removed free of costs. When the complainant visited the respondent no.1 for repair of the vehicle, he was attended properly and all the defects were removed free of costs.  There is no manufacturing defect in the motor cycle and the same is running properly.  The complainant is a teacher and travels from his village Garhwal to village Pugthala and back covering about 60 kms and he does not handle the motor cycle properly and drive the same carelessly.  The genuine parts are fitted in the motor cycle.  The allegation of cheating or harassment as alleged by the complainant are altogether wrong and false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

5.        After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file carefully, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Rather it is gathered from the pleadings and record available on the case file that the main intention of the complainant is to get replaced his old motor cycle with new one.  But the same cannot be allowed until and unless the complainant proves the manufacturing defects in the motor cycle and the said defects are unrepairable.  The complainant has failed to produce any expert report or expert opinion which may go to prove that the defects in the motor cycle are unrepairable and the said vehicle is having manufacturing defects and the same needs to be replaced.  In the absence of the expert report or expert opinion, the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief against replacement of his vehicle or for refund of its costs.  Thus, we are of the view that the present complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed since the complainant has miserably failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, the present compliant stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)   (J.L.Gupta)               (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF                DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 20.07.2016