DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Date : 13.5.2016

            This appeal has arisen out of order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, (in short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the complaint has been allowed ex parte in part. Being aggrieved over the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.         

            It is the case of the Complainant that she purchased Y.O. Bike (Electron ER) at a cost of Rs.31.130/- (Rupees thirty one thousand one hundred thirty) only by cash from the OP No. 1, the authorized dealer of the OP No. 2, for the purpose of taking her son to his school from residence to Jodhpur Park, etc. OPs convinced her about several service centres in and around South Kolkata, particularly on the way from residence to school and will be provided best after sale service. But, she was duped in the matter. On 13.04.2013, she went to the service centre to rectify the trouble, where she was charged for the parts and was not given any receipt. Also, on 10.01.2013, she was denied service. Further, on 11.08.2013, she went to the service centre and she had to pay Rs.1,200/- as repairing charge of the charger of the Bike. Furthermore, on 16.12.2013, in the afternoon, she went to a Doctor’s Chamber near Jadavpur  P.S. with her son (12 years old) and they  had to travel (3-4 K.M) with the faulty Bike and had to keep the Bike in a stationary shop and collected the same on 19.12.2013  and returned home (2.5 K.M) by pushing the Bike. On 18.12.2013 also, she called the service centre to send a mechanic to her residence to check the Bike, who demanded Rs.300/-, but the centre refused to issue any bill and the service charge reduced by the personnel to Rs.100/- , and around 6.45 p.m., a mechanic from service   centre came and checked the Bike by removing all parts and replaced the controller and she was asked to pay Rs.3,600/- and on 22.12.2013, around 11.30 a.m.,  Rs.3,800/- instead of Rs.3,600/- for replacement of the controller  was asked, but her husband refused it. On 23.12.2013, she sent a letter to OP No. 1 narrating her plight, but all her efforts went in vain. Lastly, this case.

            It has to be considered if the impugned ex parte order passed in the matter is required to be interfered with by way of higher compensation, cost and penalty as prayed for by the Appellant in this appeal.

Decision with reasons

            Authorized person of the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant had to walk 12 K.M. for fault of the Bike. The sum awarded in favour of the Complainant /Appellant is required to be enhanced for the harassment entailed to her. Also, she  be required to be given an amount of penalty on daily basis. The OP No. 1 / Respondent No.1 has falsely promised about service centres and should be penalized. He has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 7173/2002, in the case of Gaziabad Development Authority-Vs- Balbil Singh.

            The representatives of the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that an ex parte order has been passed in the matter. The said vehicle is with the Complainant/Appellant, which she uses. Any complaint of the Complainant/Appellant is against the OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1, not against this respondent. There is at all no proof of any walk of 12 K.M. and also there is no basis for enhancement. Accordingly, the prayer be rejected.

            Evidently, there is no foolproof cause of any inherent defect of the Bike. The alleged promises are also not noted down. The Ld. Forum concerned has favouably viewed the circumstances and passed a reasonable order, which is impugned. There is nothing to disturb the findings as well as the quantum of award made therein. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed.