Case No.2/2020   

IN THE MATTER OF

Mormukut Upadhyay  S/o Sri Girprasad Upadhyay R/o Rudayan urf Tarapur Post Gonda  Distt. Aligarh

(Through: Advocate Ved Prakash Sharma)

                                                         V/s

1. Manager, TVS Motor Company Ltd. Haritha Post Box No. 4 Hausar Tamilnadu
2. Goyal Motors TVS Motor Company Ltd. Sasni Gate Mathura Road Aligarh By Prop./Onwer

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

(a) Ops be directed to repair the moped with new parts.

(b) Ops be directed on failure to repair the moped to pay its price RS.47000/ with interest.

(c) Ops be directed to pay Rs. 5000/ incurred by him.

(d) Ops be directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.10000/.

(e) Ops be directed to pay compensation Rs. 50000/ for harassment.

2. The Complainant stated that he had purchased a moped on 21.01.2019 for Rs.47000/ from Op no.2 which was found on driving, the defects which could not be removed despite of services carried out on 4.2.2019, 19.3.2019 and 5.6.2019 but no defect was removed.
3.  Op no.1 submitted in WS that complainant purchased the vehicle from Op no.2 on 21.1.2019. It has been wrongly alleged that vehicle was having manufacturing defects. The vehicle was duly serviced to the satisfaction of complainant and can be presumed that there is no defect in the vehicle. Op is not liable in the case. Complainant has not submitted any expert opinion as per section 38(2) (c) of the Act. Op no2 has not filed WS .
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  Op No.1 has also filed his affidavit and papers  in support of his pleadings
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. It is evident from perusal of record that no expert opinion about the alleged defects as stated by the complainant has not been submitted by the complainant. Complainant has to prove the defects with satisfactory evidence. Op has submitted the service chart wherein three free services, two running repairs and six paid services of the vehicle have been shown during the period from 8.2.2019 to 4.6.2021. There appears no such defect in the vehicle as per chart to arrived at a conclusion that the vehicle or any part was required to be replaced by the Op. There is no substance in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed.  
8.  We hereby dismiss the Complaint.
9. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
10. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.