Case No. 56/2016   

IN THE MATTER OF

Jitendra Kumar S/o Sri Ravendra Mohan Varshney R/o Gali No. 1 Goolar Road, Aligarh

                             (Through: Advocate Ved Prakash Sharma)

                                           V/s

1. Manyak Agrawal S/o Rajesh Agrawal R/o 15D Samad Road, Aligarh Director Mascut Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Melrose Delhi G.T. Road,Aligarh
2. Managing Director, Corporate Office Honda Motor cycle and scooter India Pvt. Ltd. (H.M.S.I.) Plot No.1&2 Sector 3 IMT Manesar District Gurugram (Haryana) 

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, 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 either to replace the motorcycle by the same model motar cycle or to refund its price Rs.63650/ with interest @18% annum from 16.10.2014 till the date of payment.
2. Cost of the case Rs.10000/ be awarded.
3. Compensation Rs.25000/ for mental harassment be awarded.

2. Complainant stated that he had purchased a motorcycle for Rs.63650/ from OP on 16.10.2014. After purchasing to motorcycle, leakage in engine was found. On complaint the motor cycle was handed over to service center where the fault could not be removed. Complainant complaint about the leakage in engine every time when motorcycle was board to the service center for services but the defect could notbe removed till date. On 28.01.2016 it was told by the authorized service center that the leakage in engine was the manufacturing defect. The motorcycle was parked at the service center since 28.1.2016.      
3. OP no.1 submitted in WS that the complainant had purchased motorcycle for Rs.63050/ and the fault in the motorcycle is not supported with the evidence. Whenever the complainant brought the motor cycle for service, the service was carried out on 25.1.2015,10.5.2015 and 22.11.2015 and the leakage in engine was not complained. Complainant use the motorcycle during the period from 16.10.2014 to 21.1.2016 and service was continuously carried out. On 26.04.2016 the meter reading of motorcycle was 13409 KM. complainant left the motorcycle on 15.4.2016 when the meter reading was 13317 and problem of leakage was gazed after 92 KM run which was not found correct. Complainant was informed to notice to take motorcycle failing which he was asked to pay Rs.100/ per day as parking charges.
4. OP 2 has reiterated in its WS the version made by the OP no.1.
5.  Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. And Ops have also filed his affidavit and papers in support of their  pleadings.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
7. The first question of consideration before complainant is entitled any relief.
8. It is evident from the record that there is no indication of leakage in the engine of the motor cycle in the papers pertaining to the service of the motorcycle. There is no sufficient evidence to prove the leakage in the engine of the motorcycle as a manufacturing defect. It is relevant to mention here that the motorcycle brought before the commission under order of the commission which was driven by the complainant for a day and appeared to be fit for driving.  There is no substance in complaint and is liable to be dismissed. Complainant is a liberty to take delivery of the motorcycle parked with the OP No.1.
9. The question formulated above is decided against the complainant.
10. We hereby dismiss the compliant.
11. 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.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.