Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)          This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘Forum below’ in short) dated 11.10.2010 in Consumer Complaint No.225/2009.  The facts leading to this appeal can be summarised as under:

(2)          The Appellant/Original Complainant had purchased bike from the showroom of Respondent No.2/original Opposite Party No.2 on 28.07.2006 for consideration of `27,350/- along with Insurance with warranty of one year.  Within one month from the purchase there was problem in the lock and brake of the vehicle.  At the time of sale it was promised that the average of the bike would be 52 to 55 kilometers.  However, the said vehicle had not given average more than 22 to 25 kilometers.  There was no milometer in the vehicle.  As there were defects in the vehicle the Appellant/original Complainant filed a complaint to the Grahak Panchayat on 20.02.2007.  The original Opposite Parties had replaced the battery of the vehicle as shock absolver and Appellant/original Complainant was compelled to sign on the letter that now the vehicle is alright.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party had replaced the vehicle on 08.08.2007.  The replaced vehicle also started giving trouble to the Appellant after 3/4 months.  On 10.01.2009 as the vehicle was having starting trouble the Appellant/original Complainant informed to the representative of the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties repaired the vehicle, however, they have charged bill of `1,360/-.  As the Opposite Parties failed to provide service to the vehicle, the Appellant filed a consumer complaint praying `27,350/- for the costs of the vehicle and insurance, `25,000/- for mental torture, `1,360/- repair charges, `1,650/- for other expenses.  The Forum below, after hearing both the parties has dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 11.10.2010.   Being aggrieved by this order, the present appeal is filed.

(3)          In the appeal, it is the contention of the Appellant that she has purchased the bike and there was warranty of one year.  However, bike started giving trouble within a period of one month.  The Respondents have no service centre for the repair of the vehicle, the Respondents failed to provide service to the Appellant.  The Forum below erred in observing that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.

(4)          Admittedly, the Appellant has purchased the bike on 28.07.2006 with insurance cover and warranty of one year.  It is the contention of the appellant that the bike started giving trouble after one month.  It is on record that the Appellant approached to the Grahak Panchayat for redressal of her grievances regarding vehicle.  It is on record that the Respondents have provided service to the Appellant from time to time.  Respondents have replaced the vehicle on 08.08.2007.  From the complaint itself it is seen that whenever there was problem with the vehicle, the Respondents have provided her service.  The Appellant has contended that because of brake problem she met with an accident 2/3 times.  However, she has not provided any evidence to prove this contention.  In her complaint she herself admitted that the Respondents have replaced the parts as per the request of the Appellant.  The Appellant miserably failed to prove her case before the Forum below by adducing the evidence.  Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Forum below passed the order. 

(5)          We do not find any substance in the appeal.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal is dismissed.

    (ii)       The order of the Forum below is confirmed.

  (iii)       No order as to costs.