Delhi

North East

CC/51/2020

Sh. Rashid Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samar Motor - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2023

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.51/20

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rashid Khan, S/o Sh. Chotey Khan, R/o H.No. 361, Gali No. 18, A-Block, Brijpuri, Wazirabad Road, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.         3.	M/s Samar Motor, At: D-2, Chand Bagh, Main Bhajan Pura Chowk, Red Light, Near Peer Baba Ki Mazar, Delhi 110094   Hero Motor Corp. Ltd., Regd. Office at: 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Delhi   M/s Aman Motors, Old Address: Aman Motor, A-7, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi 110094 New Address: 1 W/S-17A, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Near Chintamani Restaurant, Delhi 110095	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

21.10.2020 09.08.2023 26.10.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

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

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 26.10.2019, the Complainant had purchased a Motor Cycle Passion Pro X for a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. Complainant stated that since beginning the said motor cycle was not working properly due to some manufacturing defect and it created some problem like self starting problem, consumed very fuel and also created problem in pickup. After that on 27.10.2019, the Complainant made a complaint regarding the fault in the said motor cycle to Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 flatly refused to take the complaint of the Complainant. The Complainant also made a written complaint to the Opposite Party No. 1 by speed post. It is his case that he made several complaints to the Opposite Party No. 1 but all in vain and Complainant also gave the said motor cycle to the service centre but no satisfactory repaired was done by the Opposite Party No. 1. It is his case that on 23.12.2019, he paid a sum of          Rs. 336/- to the Opposite Party No. 3 for free service charge. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 had received forcefully Rs. 510/- from the Complainant on 12.09.2020. It is his case that Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that their expert would contact regarding this fault but failed to do so. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and he has also prayed for Rs. 70,000/- i.e. cost of the motor cycle.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that it does not have any concerned with Opposite Party No. 3. It is stated that there is no cause of action against it. The allegations made in the complaint are denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are false. It is also stated that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that the issues/problems pointed out by the Complainant were duly attended and resolved to the complete satisfaction of the Complainant at the service centre. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has concealed the material facts. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service. It is stated that whenever the Complainant approached it, the problem told by the Complainant was resolved. The allegations made in the complaint are denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Nadeem Chaudhary, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of Opposite Party No. 2

8. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities, Opposite Party No. 2 has failed to file its evidence. Therefore, the evidence of Opposite Party No. 2 was closed vide order dated 23.02.2023.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

9. To support its case Opposite Party No. 3 has filed affidavit of Sh. Jai Shankar Sharma, wherein, he has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 3 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

10. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 to address the arguments. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a two wheeler and the said two wheeler started giving problem from the very beginning and it used to consume more fuel. It is also alleged that the bike was having pickup problem.
11. The perusal of the complaint reveals that in para no. 3 of the complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the said problems were due to some manufacturing or assembly defect. However, the Complainant has not filed any evidence to support his contention that there was some manufacturing defect in his two wheeler. It is also his case that the Opposite Party No. 1 has received Rs. 510/- forcefully from him on 12.09.2020, however, no cogent evidence such as police complaint etc. has been filed. It is also to be noted that the job sheets etc. filed along with the complaint do not mention about any manufacturing defect or taking forcibly money from the Complainant. The allegations made in the complaint are not supported by any cogent evidence. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
12. Order announced on 26.10.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

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