Haryana

Kaithal

CC/129/2022

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navdeep Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

                      

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.129/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.05.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:20.04.2023.

Ramesh Kumar (Aadhar Card No.8976 7009 9826) S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand, resident of near Main Bazar Pai, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Navdeep Motors Kaithal Road, Pundri, District Kaithal, Mob.No.94678-24203 through its partner/proprietor.
2. Hero Moto Corp Ltd., 3^rd Floor Tower-A DLF Centre Court Sector-42, Gold Course Road, Gurugram-122002, Haryana, through its M.D.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                None for the respondents.

                (Defence of respondents already struck-off).

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ramesh Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle Hero-CD-Delux from the respondents on 05.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.60,500/- and the same was registered with the Registration Authority, Kaithal on 17.10.2020 bearing registration No.HR08-AC-3929.  It is alleged that from the date of its purchase, due to the mechanical defects in the said motor-cycle, the complainant is suffering trouble.  After three months of purchasing the motor-cycle, the gear box of the said motor-cycle was damaged and the same was replaced with a new one by the OPs.  It is further alleged that in the month of September, 2021, the engine of motor-cycle has been ceased and due to the said defect, motor-cycle has been stopped to run.  It is further alleged that the complainant went to respondent No.1 for 3^rd service of the motor-cycle run upto 6180 KMs. and requested to remove the defects and to replace the defective engine of motor-cycle with the new one but the respondent No.1 has refused to do so and did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared initially before this Commission but after 28.10.2022 the respondents neither appeared in this Commission nor filed the written statement despite availing several opportunities including last opportunity, so, defence of respondents was struck off vide order dt. 03.11.2022 passed by this Commission.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

5.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle Hero-CD-Delux from the respondents on 05.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.60,500/- and the same was registered with the Registration Authority, Kaithal on 17.10.2020 bearing registration No.HR08-AC-3929.  It has been further argued that from the date of its purchase, due to the mechanical defects in the said motor-cycle, the complainant is suffering trouble.  After three months of purchasing the motor-cycle, the gear box of the said motor-cycle was damaged and the same was replaced with a new one by the OPs.  It has been further argued that in the month of September, 2021, the engine of motor-cycle has been ceased and due to the said defect, motor-cycle has been stopped to run.  It has been further argued that the complainant went to respondent No.1 for 3^rd service of the motor-cycle run upto 6180 KMs. and requested to remove the defects and to replace the defective engine of motor-cycle with the new one but the respondent No.1 has refused to do so and did not redress the grievances of complainant.

6.             An application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was moved by the complainant for technical expert to see the defect in the aforesaid motor-cycle.  Mark-A is the report of technical expert namely Jantraj, MMV Instructor, Govt. ITI, Kaithal vide which it has been stated that after inspection of said motor-cycle, it was found that many of spare parts of engine has been changed by complainant, some noise & vibration of engine during the running of motor-cycle and noise & vibration in engine occurs due to wear & tear in piston rays.

7.             The main contention of complainant is that said motor-cycle was having manufacturing defect but he has failed to produce on file any report of engineer which could prove that the said motor-cycle was having any mechanical defect.  The aforesaid expert has mentioned in his report that some noise & vibration of engine occurred due to wear & tear in piston rays and he has not mentioned any mechanical or manufacturing defect in the motor-cycle. 

8.             Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we direct the Ops jointly and severally to repair the said motor-cycle and to replace the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant.  There is no order as to costs.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted partly against both the OPs. 

9.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.