Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/95

DEWAN MOTORS & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAWAN KR. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 26.08.2015

First Appeal- 95/13

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. M/s Deewan Motors,

    F-1/1, Mahaveer Enclave,

    Palam Dabri Road, New Delhi-45

 

2. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd.

    Akurdi, Pune – 411035

                                                                                       …..Appellants

 

Versus

Sh. Pawan Kumar

S/o Sh. Rohtar Singh,

R/o House No. H-164,

Raj Nagar, Part-II, Palam Colony,

New Delhi - 110045

 

                                                                                    …..Respondent CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

(O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.             This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘The Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi (in short ‘The District Forum’) in complaint case 12/2011 whereby the appellant/OP has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent/complainant towards compensation and Rs. 5000/- has been awarded towards litigation expenses.

2.             A complaint under section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that he had purchased a motor bike make Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC from the appellant no. 1 herein i.e. OP-1 before the District Forum on 13.04.2010 for a sum of Rs. 65,604/-. It was alleged that from the day of purchase the bike was giving problems. It was also alleged that the respondent/complainant had got the bike checked several times from appellant/OP-1. The bike was also repaired by appellant/OP-1 several times and its parts were also changed despite that it was not giving satisfactory performance. The defects in the bike alleged in the complaint were as under:

“i. Bike chain set defective.

        ii. 2 times bike bush had been changed.

        iii. Bike shocker linkage problem.

        iv. Back wheel bubbling.

        v. Bike pick-up problem.

        vi. Bike not gets start several times.

        vii. Several times in running mode bike off in the road & try to start several times than bike start.

        viii. Several times Bike geared stuck to change the gear.

        ix. Even after this may bike is u engine oil regressively and due to which my bike engine need to be reopened again as per service center engineer.”

3.             The respondent/complainant had alleged that he had given the bike at the service center of appellant-1/OP-1 as it was giving black smoke also. Respondent/complainant had alleged that whenever bike was returned after repairs, it had started giving problems after 10-15 days. He had also requested appellant-2/OP-2 to resolve the problems but of no use. The respondent/complainant had alleged that his office is in Noida and at the relevant time he was studying in University in south Delhi and had to spend lot of time in travelling. However, due to the problems in the bike lot of time was wasted. The respondent/complainant had prayed that the bike be replaced and he be provided with a new bike or the price for which he had purchased the bike be returned with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment.

4.             The complaint was opposed by the appellant/OPs by filing a joint written statement wherein it was alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in the bike. It was also alleged that no expert opinion was produced by the respondent/complainant in this regard. It was further alleged that the alleged defects did not amount to manufacturing defect. It was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP as was alleged.

5.             The parties had led evidence before the District Forum in the form of affidavit. Both the parties were also heard before the District Forum. The Ld. District Forum held that there was no manufacturing defect as was alleged by the respondent/complainant. The Ld. District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OPs in as much as the bike was kept in the service center of appellant/OP for 13 days. Some damage was also caused during service to the tank of motor bike. Relying on material on record the Ld. District Forum held that the bike was released only after Police intervention and the respondent/complainant had to spend Rs. 7,600/- for satisfactory plying the bike. Accordingly, the District Forum granted compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and 5000/- towards compensation.

6.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.

7.             Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no cogent evidence in support of the claim of the respondent that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as is held by Ld. District Forum. It is further contended that there is no evidence that some damage had been caused during the service to the tank of the motor bike. It is further contended that even the estimate provided for repair was fabricated. It is contended that there is no evidence that police had to intervene for release of bike.

8.             Respondent has argued in person. He has stated that he has argued that he was fed up of visiting to the service station of the appellant/OP again and again and the findings are based on material on record.

9.             The findings of the District Forum as regards as deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OPs are as under:

        “However, since the complainant was not satisfied with the services being provided by the OP’s, therefore, they can be held liable for deficiency-in-service which is even established from the fact as admitted by the workshop manager of the OP’s. Vide endorsement on Annxure-2, he has recorded that some damage was caused during service to the tank of motor bike, which he promised to get repaired. According to the complainant, his bike had been kept by the service centre for 13 days and was released only after police intervention. This sort of conduct on the part of OP’s is sufficient to constitute deficiency-in-service and as per the estimate for repair given by “Ramji Automobile” on 18.07.2011, the complainant is required to spend sum of Rs. 7600/- for satisfactory plying the vehicle”.

10.            There is an affidavit of the respondent/complainant before District Forum which shows the repeated visits of respondent/OPs. All the relevant job sheets placed ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________befvisited the appellant/OP. Further he was not satisfied with service given by the appellant and stated an _____ that had taken an estimate from expert Ramji Automobile. According to which Rs. 7600/- was spent for satisfactory plying the vehicle. The estimate is given on the printed letter head giving the details of Ramji Automobiles. It is not the stand of the appellant the original documents is not produced before the District Forum. The respondent/complainant belonging to middle class. At the time he was student as well as working. The findings of Ld. District Forum are based on the evidence on record. There is no illegality or perversity is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission.

                The appeal is dismissed.

                A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be provided to the parties free of costs as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                                                          

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rakeeba