Delhi

East Delhi

CC/5/2014

AMIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

RACE HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                       Consumer complaint no.    05/2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                        Date of Institution           02/01/2014

                                                                                                        Order reserved on            09/02/2017

                                                                                                        Date of Order                    10/02/2017               

In matter of

Mr Amit Kumar Sharma, adult

S/o   Sh Rakesh Kumar   

R/o- B 223 Gali no, 1,  

Rajveer Colony, Gharoli Extn, Delhi 110096 ………..…………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                            

                                                                              Vs

1-M/s Race Honda 

80 A,Radhey PuriExtn.I

Main Jagat Puri, Delhi 110051…………………………………………….Opponent

 

Complainant……..……………………………In Person

Opponent’s Advocates……………………Prashant Jain & Asso.

 

Quorum ………………………………………….Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                     

                    

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief  Facts of the case                                                                                                   

Complainant purchased motor cycle Shine discover model having registration no. DL14 SA 3594 for a sum of Rs 62323/- from OP on dated 15/01/2013 marked as Ex CW1/1.

The said motor cycle was insured from ICICI Lombard two wheeler insurance scheme vide policy no. 3005/2010592724/0000011251 from 16/01/2013 and had paid policy premium Rs 1407/.

Very next day(17/01/2013), the said motor cycle had started giving bubbling while driving, so he took his motor cycle to OP and at OP’s own service centre, job card was prepared vide no. 4573 which showed that both the tire were not proper and would require replacement as per the noted repair advice. It was assured by OP that tyres would be replaced as had defects, so he had to visit to the manufacturer of the tyres at their office at Motinagar, Delhi or would be checked by tyre manufacturing technical person, till he could use. He used his motor cycle till his monthly free service as marked Ex CW1/2.       

In his first month’s free service on dated 18/02/2013, routine service was done vide job card no. 12JC18389. Complainant paid a sum of Rs 418/ for labour and lubricant charge marked as Ex CW1/3, but his complaint regarding tyre remained.  

In second free service, dated 29/04/2013 vide job card no. 13JC01746, routine service was done and mount Rs 849/ were paid as per Ex CW1/4. In third free service, dated 26/08/2013 vide job card no. 13JC08064, routine service was done and amount Rs 936/ as  paid as per Ex CW1/5. Till then no authorized person visited and seen the tyre in OP’s workshop.

On the advice of OP, complainant visited MRF tyre head office for his tyre complaint on 16/09/2013 vide complaint no. 802276798. Inspection Report-Rejection Advice letter was handed over on 23/09/2013 from the technical service person of MRF Ltd. Stating that there was no visible defects/damage in both the tyres as no manufacturer defect was found as marked here CW1/6.  

As tyres defect were not rectified by OP, so he sent a notice dated 09/12/2013 as marked Ex CW1/7 through speed post. Not receiving any satisfactory reply, filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of motor cycle a sum of Rs 62,323/- with compensation Rs 20,000/- and litigation charges Rs 15,000/-.  

After receiving of notice, OP filed written statement stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the said motor cycle, but had wobbling after running the same and thus it was due to tyres which pertains to MRF company. As the tyre manufacturing company was not made a necessary party in this complaint case, hence complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant submitted his rejoinder and evidences on affidavit. He affirmed his facts as stated in his complaint on affidavit. OP did not submit their evidences. Even after serving notice for the date of argument, OP did not put their appearance, so arguments of complainant were heard and order was reserved.  

After perusing the facts and evidences, we are of the opinion that the defects pointed out by the complainant right from the very next day of purchase remained till his third free service was availed. Even after putting his complaint with OP, no efforts were done by the OP to rectify the tyre defects or would have perused the complaint to the manufacturer of tyre. It clearly amount deficiency of OP in not putting any efforts in replacing the tyres rather advised complainant to visit of his own to the head office of MRF tyre company for replacement.

There was no evidence seen in evidence on record that in case of tyre complaint, complainant had to visit to tyre manufacturer head office. It is not possible for a complainant to know that who is the manufacturer of which parts in his vehicle and that too when the said motor cycle was brought on the very next day of its purchase.

It is very clear that tyres have minimum six month manufacturing guarantee, but here in this case, the tyres were started giving trouble on the very next day. Visiting tyre manufacturing head office by complainant on the advice of OP, amounts to physical harassment and mental agony. Thus, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has merit and so we pass the following order as under-

1. OP shall replace the defective tyre within 30 days from receiving of this order and shall give standard warranty on the tyres as per norms to the complainant or shall pay the cost of tyres of same variety with 6% interest from the date of the filing of this complaint.
2. We also award cost of sum of Rs 5500/- for harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in services of OP. This shall include litigation charges also.  
3. If awarded amount is not complied in the stipulated time, entire awarded amount shall carry the same interest till realized.       

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the rules and the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                     Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member

                                                   

                                                        Shri Sukhdev Singh - President