Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 582.
Instituted on : 18.10.2016.
Decided on : 13.07.2018.
Sanjeev s/o Sh. Dharamvir, r/o Village Makrauli Kalan, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Ansh Bajaj, Sheela Bye-pass, Rohtak through its Sale Manager.
- Bajaj Auto Ltd. Registered & Head Office, Akurdi, Pune-411035.
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jawahar Market, D Park Model Town, Rohtak. Through its Manager.
- Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., B-2/60-61 Narain Industrial Area Phase-2 Naraina-165202.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Dharmender Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Deepak Jain Advocate for opposite party No.1,2 & 4.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a Bajaj Two Wheeler from opposite party No.1 for Rs.77586/- and the same was insured with the opposite party No.3 on the direction of OP No.1. That the vehicle is financed with opsoite party No.4. That opposite party no.1 handed over the vehicle in defected peace and the same is not usable. That complainant time and again approached to opposite parties no.1 & 2, they serviced the vehicle but the position is same. That act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with new one and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 ,2 & 4 in their reply has submitted that the allegations leveled against the O.Ps regarding selling of defective vehicle are false. That as per job card dated 06.09.2016 the complainant has run his vehicle upto 540 KM without any complaint. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the dispute is between complainant and M/s Ansh Bajaj and the insurance company has no concern with this case and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP No.1, 2 & 4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and the evidence of OP No.3 was closed by the order dated 23.04.2018 of this Forum.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. At the outset we are seized of only one point that the motorcycle in question was defective when it was purchased. The complainant also placed on record two emails Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 purportedly in support of his averments. The allegation leveled requires cogent and technical evidence which is missing here. As such this complaint fails being devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
