Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1922

KAMLESH PRASAD MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, STAR AUTOMOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

SH.R.TIWARI

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1922 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 24.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.497/2014 by District Commission, Satna)

 

KAMLESH PRASAD MISHRA,

S/O SHRI LAXMI PRASAD MISHRA,

R/O PADKHURI, TEHSIL-RAMPUR BAGHELAAN,

DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)                                                                                     ….           APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. MANAGER, STAR AUTOMOBILE,

    INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEXT TO KOLGAVA

    POLICE STATION, REWA ROAD,

    SATNA (M.P.)

 

2. ZONAL OFFICE, HERO MOTOR CORP LTD.

    THIRD FLOOR, ALANKAR PALACE,

    M.P.NAGAR, ZONE-II BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                         ….           RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA                         :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Mohan Chouksey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           None for the respondent no.2.

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 05.04.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated  24.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.497/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

-2-

2.                The appellant had filed a complaint before the District Commission stating that on 12.07.2014, he had purchased a ‘Splendor Hero Motocorp’ motorcycle bearing registration no. MP-19 MK-9785, from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.1’) after paying Rs.45,241/-. He has stated that it was difficult to ride the subject motorcycle, as it used to sway while driving. The appellant approached the service centre, but the defects could not be removed. It is alleged that the employees of service centre mentioned that the chassis of the subject motorcycle is bent, which is the reason for swaying of motorcycle. The appellant alleged that motorcycle was suffering from manufacturing defects. He therefore approached the District Commission, seeking relief.     

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 in its reply before the District Commission stated that they had repaired the subject vehicle every time, when it was brought for repairs. Third servicing of the said motorcycle was done on 08.12.2014 at 6200 km. It is not possible to run the subject vehicle for such a long distance when it was not running smoothly. No complaint was registered by the appellant, regarding manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle, whenever he had approached the respondents. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

-3-

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint without analyzing the facts of the case properly.  The appellant had always pointed out defects to the respondent no.1, but the respondent no.1 failed to resolve the issues reported in the subject vehicle. In fact, the respondent no.1 had never specified the problems mentioned by the appellant, in the service job sheets.  He argued that the respondents ought to have taken cognizance of the matter, when the appellant issued legal notice and should have tried to resolve the problems, but there has been no effort from their end. He therefore argued that the impugned order, whereby the complaint has been dismissed, deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 argued that the evidence on record nowhere shows that there was any defect in the subject vehicle. On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that the motorcycle had run quite a distance, which is not possible if there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The complainant/appellant has not been able to adduce any evidence which could substantiate his allegations and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7.                The District Commission has held that there is nothing on record to substantiate complainant’s/appellant’s allegations. We also find that the service job cards are available in record, but there is no mention regarding

-4-

specific complaints faced by the appellant. Also there is no evidence on record which could suggest that the subject vehicle was swaying when it was taken for ride, as has been alleged by the appellant.  The appellant has thus not been able to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle.  In absence of any such evidence, we are of a considered view that the complainant/appellant does not deserve to be granted any relief.

8.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the same is hereby upheld.

9.                As a result, this appeal, being devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

 

      (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (D.K.SHRIVASTAVA) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                         PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                MEMBER