Delhi

North East

CC/328/2024

Vinod Kumar Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHAN TRACTORS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 328/24

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Vinod Kumar Pandey S/o Sh. Awadhesh Prasad Pandey R/o E 3/474, F/F, KH No. 632/220, St. No. 09, E Block, Near by Mata Mandir, Pusta IV, Sonia Vihar, Khajuri khas, North East, Delhi, Delhi-110090	Complainant
	Versus
	Mohan Tractors Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at 41/35, Second Floor,West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi-110026	Opposite Party

 

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

1. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, the case of the Complainant is that he purchased a vehicle Eicher 2114 XP in the month of November 2022 vide registration no. DL1GE1796. It is stated that after some time the front tyres of above said vehicle started depreciating and thereafter Complainant made complaint to Opposite Party and Opposite Party checked the vehicle and told that they have cleared the issue. It is stated that when Complainant took the vehicle to his home the same problem continued and meanwhile front two tyres was completely damaged. The Complainant again lodged complaint to Opposite Party and Opposite Party gave assurance that the tyres are under warranty so they will gave new tyres. Thereafter Opposite Party gave letter in name of JK Tyres for new tyres but JK Tyres told Complainant that your current tyres are badly damaged and they are out of warranty. Thereafter Opposite Party gave false assurances. It is sated that one more tyre got damaged and Complainant lodged complaint to Opposite Party and they kept the vehicle at service centre for 7-8 days for finding the problem in vehicle. It is stated that due to this act of Opposite Party Complainant bear a loss of Rs. 60,000/- the cost of three tyres.  The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 3,00,000/- in respect of three tyres of Rs. 60,000/-, loss of income of Rs. 1,25,000/-, driver of salary of Rs. 20,000/- and  for other expenses regarding mental agony.
2.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata and Another vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Others (2020) 9SCC 424) held that the initial onus or burden to justify, verify and authenticate the fact that there is a deficiency of service committed by a party is on the Complainant.
3. In the present case, Complainant did not file any document regarding the deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
4. Order announced on 03.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

                                               

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)