1) Shantanu Boral,
42/A, Roy Bahadur Road, Kolkata-700034. ________ Complainant
___Versus___
1) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited, Service Department,
Represented by the Managing Director,
Reg. Office : Akurali, Pune, Maharashtra-411035.
2) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited,
Regional Office : 232/B, Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road,
2nd, Lucas Building, Kolkata-700017.
3) M/s. S.P. Auto Cure,
8, Sadan Hari Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700034. _________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 33 Dated 13/01/2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant having felt the need to possess and use a two wheeler for his transport and convenience purchased one two wheeler being Bajaj XCD 125 D.T.S.I. bike from o.p. no.3 which is manufacturer and marketed by o.p. no.1 on 23.6.08. Accordingly the complainant paid the consideration price of Rs.41,950/- including the VAT as per bill / invoice. Unfortunately, from day one the complainant found that mileage given by the said vehicle was 40-45 km / ltr as against 109 km / ltr as claimed by o.ps. Despite the firm assurance made by o.ps. the matter of poor mileage still continued with the said vehicle. Moreover, the said vehicle faced pick up problem which was also brought to the notice of o.p. nos.2 and 3. Beside the poor mileage and pick up problem within three months from purchase the complainant had to replace the clutch plate also. Instead of offering easy transport convenience and economy the said vehicle gave mental agony and tension. Finding no other alternative complainant filed the instant case for seeking appropriate redressal of his grievances.
All o.ps. contested the case by filing w/v denying the material allegations interalia stated that clutch plate can be damaged due to bad driving of the driver. The mileage depends upon speed. When the said vehicle developed the problem in pick up and jerking o.p. nos.2 and 3 gave the mandatory services. As because before realizing any vehicle for sale the same is subject to various fitness and quality tests, so no question arises of supplying any substandard defective problematic motor cycle to the complainant. O.ps. made several attempts to resolve the cogent disputes and problems but the complainant declined to act accordingly. So the case should be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons: