Haryana

StateCommission

A/240/2018

RAKESH JASPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.K. HONDA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.240 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 23.02.2018

                                                          Date of final hearing:17.10.2022

Date of pronouncement:28.12.2022

 

Rakesh Jaspal son of Shri Dayanand Jaspal aged about 35 years resident of House No.34, Model Town Extension near Himanshu Nursery Panipat.

                                                                                     ....Appellant

Versus

 

1. L.K. Honda, Gohana Road, Panipat, through its Manager/Proprietor/Managing Director.
2. Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Commercial Complex 11, Sector 49-50 Golf course Extension Road Gurgaon-122018, Haryana through its proprietor/Managing Director.

                                                                                         ...Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Naveen Jaspal, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.240 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 18.01.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Panipat (In short now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.157 of 2016, which was dismissed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of a Honda Activa bearing registration No.HR-06T-1514. On 17.11.2015, he visited to OP No.1 for removing vibration fault in the handle of his vehicle, but the OP No.1 told that clutch shoes also need to be replaced but they did not have the same in stock and he was asked to come on the next day and the job card issued to him earlier was also cancelled. On next day, the complainant again went to OP No.1 and fresh job card was issued to him and Rs.546/- were charged. However as complainant took the trial of the vehicle and found that the defect was not removed rther it still persisted. Then another job card was issued and he was asked to come at 6:00 pm to take back his vehicle but when he went there at 6:00 pm, he was asked to come on 19.11.2015. But on 19.11.2015, the vehicle was again not given back to the complainant. Thereafter, on 23.11.2015, he received a SMS that his complaint has been addressed and he was asked to contact OP No.1. On 23.11.2015, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle and paid Rs.2642/- as demanded by OP No.1 but the issue pointed out by the complainant was still not removed. On asking of complainant, OP No.1 refused to resolve this grievance. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, OPs filed its written version stating therein that the present complaint was not maintainable and complaint had no locus standi and cause of action to file the same. Even complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and also about complainant having concealed the true and material facts, complaint being false and frivolous etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On merits, It was submitted that the complainant was never harassed by the Ops because every time as and when the complainant came to Ops and reported any complaint in the vehicle, the Ops used to remove the same and provided the proper services to the complainant. It was further submitted that the Ops never committed any negligence in providing the services to the complainant as alleged by the complainant. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Panipat has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 18.01.2018.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.

7.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh. Naveen Jaspal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appeal  as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      It is admitted that complainant being the registered owner of a Honda Activa bearing No.HR-06T-1514 visited OP No.1 for getting normal service of his vehicle as well as for removing the vibration from the handle thereof. The plea of complainant was that he went to OP No.1 for removing the vibration of the vehicle but the same was not removed. The complainant has placed on record the copy of job card No.53920 dated 18.11.2015, but perusal of this document shows that he has not made any complaint with regard to vibration of his vehicle. OP No.1 clearly mentioned that Rs.546/- vide tax invoice Ex.C-4 dated 18.11.2015 has been charged for engine oil and certain other heads. Similarly, vide tax invoice Ex.C-5 dated 23.11.2015, description of amount of Rs.2642/- paid by the complainant. So, it can be presumed that the amount charged by the Ops was for the regular maintenance and services of the vehicle. So, it cannot be said that OP No.1 had charged any illegal amount from him. It is not the case that the vehicle of the complainant was within warranty period and the amount has been wrongly charged from him. Thus, there is nothing on record to prove that as and when the complainant visited the Ops seeking removal of any defect of his vehicle or for service purposes, job was not done properly and it cannot said to be any case of deficiency in terms of services rendered by the Ops. The learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 18.01.2018.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

9.      Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

28th  December, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

S.K (Pvt. Secy.)