Judgment : Dt.8.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Pintu Barua, son of Sukamal Barua, residing at 39, Lotus Park, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047 against Manager, Hitech Motors, authorized Dealer of Hero MotoCorp Ltd., Showroom-II, having its office at 267, Prince Anwar Shah Road, P.S.-Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 033, OP praying for compensation of Rs.30,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.20,000/- as mental harassment and Rs.78,789/- as value of the vehicle and interest of Rs.7,091/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a motor bike bearing Model  No.Glamour F1, manufactured by Hero Motor Corporation two wheeler (4 stroke) for a sum of Rs.78,789/- on 1.2.2017 and the bike was delivered on that day and receipt was issued on Rs.78,789/-. After few days Complainant felt that the vehicle developed trouble while riding and day by day there was no smooth running on road. Complainant made complaint to the OP over telephone. OP took no effort to rectify the said fault and did not send any service Engineer to rectify the fault. On 9.2.2017 Complainant went to the showroom where experts inspected the motorbike and rectified the defects without changing any parts. Again on 13.2.2017 some problems developed and the Complainant went to the showroom where technician advised the Complainant to go to the service centre of Exide batter for checking up the battery. Service Engineer of Exide informed the Complainant that battery is out of warranty from 1.2.2017. The vehicle has already covered the requisite mileage and the battery is a scrapped battery. It was also revealed that the battery has manufacturing defect. Complainant served a request letter to the Manager of Hitech Motor Showroom through speed post and thereafter served a legal notice but since the defects were not removed so the Complainant filed this complaint.

            OP filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP has stated that the allegation of the complaints are baseless and false. OP called the Complainant on several occasions upon receipt of the said legal notice dt. June 4, 2017. But  the Complainant was not ready for resolving the matter amicably. OP was always ready and willing to replace the battery. So, OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP has not filed questionnaire and OP has not filed any evidence.

            Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

            On perusal of prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.78,789/- with 9% interest. As per provision of C.P.Act refund is ordered after remedies of removal, repair or replacement are exercised. On perusal of complaint, it appears that defects in the bike was due to defect of battery. OP has submitted that he is ready and willing to replace the battery and the Complainant was not ready to opt for that.

            Since the Complainant has himself stated that defect was due to battery so the remedy is replacement of battery and it cannot be said that there was manufacturing defect in the bike.

            As such, we are of the view that if OP is directed to replace the battery justice would be served.

            So far as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.80,000/- is concerned there does not appear any ground to allow this prayer.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/374/2017 and the same is allowed in part on contest. OP is directed to replace the battery of the bike of the Complainant within 3 months of this order.