The present complaint primarily pertains to the alleged misbehavior and slapping of the complainant by the opposite party vendor’s (hereinafter called the OP1 and OP2) employee Sunil Kumar at the instance of the OP1 owner/proprietor. The complainant had purchased one Hero Brand M/cycle RC # PB06AT0778 (from the OP1) that started malfunctioning (allegedly low pick-up) right after 2 days of its purchase on 01.09.2018. The defect was reported to the OP1 who assured its removal autobiographically after the run-up period/ initial services but that did not work and the defect continued up to the 3^rd service on 22.03.2019. The OP1 requested the complainant to visit on 29.03.2019 to sort out the matter, once for all. However, a heated argument ensued on that day resulting into slapping of the complainant by the employee Sunil Kumar at the instance of the OP1 owner. The matter was duly reported to the OP2 who assured relief but that was never to be hence the present complaint before us.

2.       Further, the complainant has pleaded that the reported defect in the M/cycle continues till date and he be allowed its replacement with new M/cycle or refund of its invoice amount, in full, along with Rs 100,000/- as compensation besides a sum of Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.   Lastly, the complainant, in support of his pleadings has filed following documents:  Affidavit Ex.Cw1/A deposing the contents of complaint, Delivery Challan (01.09.2018) Ex.C1 of the M/cycle, R.C. Ex.C2 PB06AT0778,  Ist. Service Card Ex.C3, IInd. Service Card Ex.C4, 3^rd. Service Card Ex.C5, Service Card 22.03.2019 Ex.C6, Copy of RC Ex.C7, insurance policy Ex.C8/C9, Complaint Ack. Ex.C10 and Copy of Complainant Aadhar Ex.C11.
4. We observe that the complainant has closed his evidence sans expert opinion to prove manufacturing defect requisite to claim/ seek replacement etc of the defective vehicle. Somehow, the complainant has not produced any proof/ evidence to prove the alleged ‘slapping incident’ rightly so as it’s trial and adjudication do not fall under the legislated provisions of the applicable statute.
5. The OPs, in compliance to the Commission’s Summons, appeared through its counsel and filed their written-version, refuting, denying and rebutting therein, all the allegations as contained in the complaint. Firstly, there’s no cause of action ever erupted in the complainant’s favor and further he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Further, there’s no deficiency on the OPs’ part and the present complaint has been filed simply to harass them, unnecessarily.
6. On merits, the OPs have denied and rebutted all the allegations as leveled against them in the complaint. In order to support their pleadings put forth in defense the OPs have produced following documents: Affidavit Ex.OP1/1/A deposing the contents of written reply; Job Cards Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 exhibiting standard service and NIL specific defects pointed-out by the complainant.
7. We have carefully examined the documents/ evidence produced on record by both the contesting sides in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as put-forth by the present litigants in the light of arguments by the learned counsels. We find that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect in the M/cycle; and, thus not entitled to the relief(s) as requested therein vide his present complaint.   
8. Finally, in the light of the all above, and seeing no merit in the present complaint we order its ‘dismissal’ with however no orders as to its costs.
9. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                  President.                         

ANNOUNCED:                                      (R.S.Sukhija)

MAY 05, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.