DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  29

                                                Instituted on:    25.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       26.07.2018

Avtar Singh son of Gurmail Singh, resident of Ahulak Patti, Village Nelowal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Preet Automobiles, Dhadrian Road, Longowal, Sub Tehsil Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur (authorised dealer of Hero Moto Corp) through its Manager.

2.             Hero Motocorp Limited, 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri Ramandeep Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri Ajay Bansal, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.               Shri Avtar 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 motorcycle i.e. Hero Hunk from OP number 1 on 31.3.2017 for Rs.52,000/- in cash against bill number 721 dated 31.3.2017 and the same was got registered under registration number PB-13-AX-2754.  The grievance of the complainant is that soon after its purchase i.e. after 20 days, the speedometer of the motorcycle became defective and the same was replaced by the OP.  Thereafter the motorcycle in question started giving leakage problem of oil and the same was removed. Now, the grievance of the complainant is that the motorcycle has developed starting problem and the scratches on the tyres of the motorcycle have also been appeared, as such, the complainant approached the OPs for removal of the defects in the motorcycle and also requested to replace the defective motorcycle with a new one, 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 replace the defective motorcycle with a new one or to refund its price and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.               In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question, but the defects therein in the motorcycle have been denied and that there is no manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. However, it is stated that the complainant may get changed the tyres and the OP will pay for the same to the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.               In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is misconceived and untenable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law, that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious one. However, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the two wheeler motorcycle as per invoice number 721 and it is further averred that the motorcycle in question was thoroughly inspection at two occasions on 6.5.2017 and 8.7.2017 and it is mentioned therein that the motorcycle does not suffer from any defects. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been dismissed.   

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents as well as affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 affidavit and copies of job sheets and closed evidence. 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.               In the present case, it is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant had purchased one Hero Hunk motorcycle from OP number 1 vide invoice number 721 dated 31.3.2017 and the motorcycle in question was having one year warranty against any of the defects.  The case of the complainant is that the motorcycle in question suffered with the starting problem and developing of the scratches on the tyres of the motorcycle.  To support this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 and alleged expert report Ex.C-5 and affidavit Ex.C-11 of one Inderdeep Singh.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has refuted all the allegations of the complainant alleged in the complaint and has also denied the alleged expert report Ex.C-5, wherein it is mentioned that the motorcycle is suffering from starting problem and leakage of engine oil from the engine, but a bare perusal of it reveals, that it seems not to be an expert report rather a bill, as such, we feel that it is not at all helpful to the case of the complainant to establish the manufacturing defects in the motorcycle. 

7.               Further we have very carefully perused the written reply filed by OP number 1, wherein the OP number 1 has made an offer to the complainant in para 3(E) that the OP number 1 is ready to pay for the cost of the tyres to the complainant. Since the complainant has failed to establish his case of any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle, as such we feel that ends of justice would be met, if the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant the cost of the tyres, which we feel would be Rs.4000/- approximate. 

8.               In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/-. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses.

9.               This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        July 26, 2018.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                      President

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                          Member

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                           Member