Haryana

StateCommission

RP/52/2014

Hero Moto Corp Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Neha Kapoor - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.52 of 2014

Date of the Institution: 18.04.2014

Date of Decision: 08.12.2016

 

1.      Hero Moto Corp Limited [Earlier Hero Honda Motors Limited] through its duly authorized signatory, 34, community centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.

2.      Yuva Motors Private Limited, 29, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Petitioners

 

Versus

 

Mrs. Neha Kapoor, W/o Sh.Atul Kapoor, R/o H.No.11, Sector-14, Faridabad, [Earlier residing at:2326, Sector 9, Faridabad], Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.N.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   Complainant purchased Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration NO.HR-51/D-1122 from M/s Viva Motors (P) Limited, i.e. opposite party (O.P.) No.2 on 26.05.1997.  As there were so many problems so she filed complaint on 15.10.1998 for replacement of the vehicle or to refund the amount. The complaint was allowed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) vide order dated 03.03.2000 and O.Ps. were directed to replace the engine of the motor cycle with new one free of charge and with extended warranty  as mentioned therein.  O.P.No.1 preferred appeal against that order, which was dismissed by this commission vide order dated 29.11.2016.  Thereafter the letter Ex.C-3 dated 18.01.2007 was sent to complainant to visit O.P.No.2 for compliance.

2.                When the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the O.Ps. she filed another complaint on 16.07.2007 which was allowed by majority view and O.ps. were directed to replace old motor cycle with new one and same model  without charging any amount alongwith Rs.3300/- as litigation charges.

3.                Thereafter complainant filed execution petition which was decided vide impugned order dated 08.02.2013 which is as under:-

“But looking to the report of mechanic, the power of engine of motorcycle now offered by JDs is 5.5% lower than that of motorcycle which was earlier sold by the respondents to the complainant. So the first part of the order is not executable after the end of collaboration of JDs with Honda company and they have to execute the second part of the order according to which they have to refund the price of the motorcycle i.e. 38,325/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 15.10.1998, till the date of actual payment as they have already paid litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

Now the execution application is adjourned to 21.04.2014 for payment/compliance.”

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.1 has preferred this revision on the ground that motor cycle of the same model and make  are not manufactured now. So it is not possible to replace the motor cycle of the same make.  In execution petition learned District Forum has directed to refund the amount alongwith interest as an alternative relief which was not granted by the learned District Forum in main complaint. Executing Court cannot modify the main order, so impugned order may be set aside and it may be directed to delivery new motor cycle as mentioned in relief clause C of the revision which is as under:-

“Allow the present revision petition on the basis of the submissions made herein as above and in consequence thereof direct the respondent herein to take the delivery of a brand new Hero Moto Corp Splendor Plus Motorcycle from the petitioners along with the Warranty of 6 months as already allowed by the DCDRF Faridabad in CC/397/1997 allowed vide order dated 08.02.2013.”

5.               None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.  It is already 2.00 P.M. The revision is pending since 2014.  So there is no necessity to wait any more  and arguments of only petitioner counsel are heard. File perused.

6.                From the perusal of order dated  24.08.2009, as mentioned above, it is clear that O.Ps. were directed to replace old motor cycle with new one and same model without charging any amount.  Whereas learned District Forum has directed to refund the price of the motor cycle if not available. It amounts to modification of the relief granted by the District Forum which is beyond the scope or jurisdiction of the District Forum.  Revisionist is ready to deliver another motorcycle as mentioned above. From the perusal of  letter dated 26.03.2013 placed on the file of this commission, it is clear that complainant has been asked to take delivery of the motor cycle from their dealer.  When production of same model is stopped then motor cycle of same type can only be delivered as mentioned in relief clause and letter dated 26.03.2013.  With this direction impugned order dated 08.02.2013 is set aside.

 

December 08th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.