Orissa

Sundargarh II

cc/60/2015

Gitanjali Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Harsheel Auto Planet - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M.K. Brahma

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SUNDARGARH-II, ROURKELA
 
Complaint Case No. cc/60/2015
( Date of Filing : 13 Oct 2015 )
 
1. Gitanjali Patra
Qtr no-H-377,Sector-6 po-Rourkela-3 sundargarh
Sundargarh
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S Harsheel Auto Planet
208/733,near state bank of india, Panposh Chowk rourkela 769004
Sundargarh
Odisha
2. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.
Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Plot no-1&2, Sec-3, IMT Mansera, Dist- Gurgaon, Haryana
Gurgaon
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B K PANDA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Babaji Sahoo MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sujata Nayak MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 Sri K.K. Lal, Advocate for the Opp. Party 0
Dated : 02 Nov 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Sri M.K. Brahma, Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant and files V.Nama and represented the case of the complainant is accepted. Advocate for OP No.1 is present and files hazira. T.P. filed by Advocate for the complainant is rejected due to ground.

   Put up at 2.P:M for order on merit.

02.11.2016

At 2.00 P.M.                                                                            ORDER

                  On perusal of the complaint petition, written show cause of the opposite parties along with the available materials on record produced by the complainant, it received that complainant purchased a vehicle of “ Honda Company” from the authorized dealer (OP No.1) on payment of Rs.56,700/-on 16.07.2014. Allegation of the complainant goes to show that the lock of the two wheeler vehicle got defected as noticed on the next day of purchase, when complaint OP No.1, asked to hand over the vehicle for 2 to 3 days for repairing of the defects which was refused as was not possible for the complainant to leave the vehicle in their custody due to daily performance of her job. On the other hand, the OPs submitted that due to non-entrustment of the vehicle by the complainant they were unable to perform job works in their show room hence, rendered no deficiency in service to complaint.

                 After going through the entire evidence from record, moreover, facts stated in the complaint do not constitute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Obviously, if the vehicle will not be given to the service provider for rectification/replacement of the defect/part/how can be defects rectified In our opinion, the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for want of cogent and convincing evidence. However, as the warranty period of the vehicle is continuing, the OP NO.1 is directed to replace the handle lock of the vehicle of the complainant as and when the same will be produced before it. The complainant is also directed to hand over the vehicle to the OP NO.1 within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this order. The C.C. Case is disposed of.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B K PANDA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Babaji Sahoo]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sujata Nayak]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.