Punjab

Sangrur

CC/412/2017

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Singla Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.R.S.Toor

14 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  412

                                                Instituted on:    16.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       14.12.2017

 

Baljit Singh son of Gurdev Singh R/O Lehragaga, District Sangrur (Ward No.3 Near Water Tanki).

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     M/s. Singla Automobiles Authorised Dealer of Bajaj Pvt. Ltd. Opp. Sunam Road (Near Bhattal College), Lehragaga through its Proprietor.

2.     M/s. Sangrur Autos, Patiala Road, Authorized Dealer of Bajaj Pvt. Ltd. Village Mangwal, Opp. Verka Milk Plant, Sangrur through its authorised signatory/Manager.

3.     Bajaj Auto, Head Office, Akrudi, Pune-411035 through its Authorised signatory/Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri R.S.Toor, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Baljit Singh,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one CT-100 motorcycle model 2016 from OP number 1 on 19.11.2016 for Rs.40,200/- after financing the same.  The grievance of the complainant is that after some times it was found that there was leakage in fuel in the chamber/bottom of the engine of the motorcycle in question and due to this the quantity of mobil oil becomes low.  The complainant visited the OPs so many times to the set right the problem in the motorcycle in question, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to solve the above said problem in the motorcycle or to refund its price along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is frivolous one and should be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, the purchase of the motorcycle in question has been admitted by the OPs.  However, any problem in the motorcycle has been denied. It has been stated that the complainant has run the motorcycle to the tune of 12172 KMs till 18.5.2017 and the Forum can call the report of independent automobile engineer regarding the working of the motorcycle.  Wear and tear problem is not sufficient to establish manufacturing defect in the motorcycle.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             At the outset, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question from OP number 1.  However, any defect in the motorcycle in question ahs been denied in toto by the OPs.  We have perused the file and found that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to support his contention that there is leakage of mobil oil from the chamber of the motorcycle.  The complainant was given sufficient opportunities to produce his evidence i.e. on 23.10.2017, 1.11.2017, 13.11.2017, 24.11.2017  and lastly on 1.12.2017 the evidence of the complainant was closed by order of the Forum.  As such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to produce cogent evidence to support his contention that there is/was any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle.  Accordingly, we find that the complaint of the complainant fails and deserves dismissal.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 14, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member