Case No. 95/2021   

      IN THE MATTER OF

            Neeraj Kumar Gupta S/O Late Sri Satya Prakash Gupta R/O Indraprasath Colony Surendra Nagar, Thana Quarsi Distt. Aligarh   

                                           V/s

1. Managing Director, Mahendra Two Wheelers Ltd. D1 Plot no.18/2 (part) MIDC Chichvad Pune 411019
2. Mahendra First Choice (Pavan Tractors) Geeetanjali Hospital ke barabar Raj Garden ke Samane Ramghat Road Aligarh Pro. Mohit Raghav
3. Shanti Motars Authorized Dealer Mahendra Two Wheelers near Soot Mill Chauraha Aligarh

              CORAM

              Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, 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-

1.     The OPs be directed to replace the motor cycle no. UP 81 BJ 6193 by the new motor cycle or to repay the amount Rs.54000/ with interest @9% or to repair the motor cycle.
2.  Compensation Rs.400000/ for physical and mental and economic damages.
3. Cost of the case Rs. 6,000/ be awarded.

2. Complainant stated that he had purchased a motaor cycle no. UP 81 BJ 6193 on 21.02.2016 for Rs.54000/ from the Ops. The motor cycle was having manufacturing defect since began. i.e. sound in engine, clutch plate defective, shocker, silencer break battery chain spokit and hand were defective. The mileages of the motor cycle is 25-30 Km per liter whereas it was stated 85.4 Km/liter  by the Ops and it was also  given pamphlet and also shown in Danik Jagran newspaper. Complainant made a complaint on 22.5.2016 to Op no.3 who stated that on the defect would be removed after services. But no improvement were not even after service. Complainant was misguided by the OP for about 5 years. The defects in  motor cycle during the period of warranty where not remove despite of notice dated 8.12.2020 given to the Ops. 
3.  Op-1 stated in WS that the motor cycle was purchased by the complainant from OP No.3 Complainant never made any complaint about the problem in motor cycle at the time of providing free services. OP No.3 replace the battery durng this period. Complainant had taken paid service on 17.1.2018 at 3350 KM from Kalinidi Automobiles Hathras and he did not point out any defect in motor cycle. The dealership of Shanti Motors Aligarh was closed and new dealer M/s Mahindra first choice was appointed where complainant reached on 24.4.2019 and pointed out the complainant of noise and mileages which were resolved till then complainant given the motorcycle 6540KM without any defect but the complainant insisted for replacement of carburetor and threatened to lounged the complaint. There is no manufacturing defect in the motor cycle which is running smoothly. There is no question of replacement of motorcycle or refund the price.  Other Ops had not file WS despite of sufficient services.

6. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  OP no.1 has also filed their affidavit and papers in support of their pleadings

7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.

8. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

8. Complainant has stated that there was sound in engine and clutch plate shoker silencer break battery chain spokit and handle were defective. Complainant has also stated no mileages.  OP has admittedly in WS that the complainant pointed out the defects of noise and mileage which were resoloved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thus it is clear that there were defect in the motor cycle which were removed by the Ops. OP has stated that the complainant had insisted for replacement of carburetor. It cannot be denied that the carburetor is vital part of the engine and most of the defects may be resolved by replace of carburetor the OP should have changed the carburetor. It was not disputed that the defects were found during the warranty period and therefore ops are liable to replace the carburetor of the motorcycle.   
9.  The question formulated above is decided in favor of complainant.
10. We hereby direct the Op no.1  to replace the carburetor of motorcycle within in a month and to pay litigation expenses Rs.5000/.
11.  Op shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
12.  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. 
13.  File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.