DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.1049 of 2011
………..,
W/o Sri Vishal Yadav,
R/o 101/148, Khandal Model House,
Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
- M/s Radiant Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,
Through Proprietor,
565 KA/94/2, Shringar Nagar,
Kanpur Road, Alambagh,
Lucknow.
- General Manager,
BEEARR Honda 10,
Ashok Marg,
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs for directing the OPs to change the defective meter and fuel gauge of the vehicle and for payment of Rs.50,000.00 as compensation.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that she purchased Honda Shine Motorcycle from OP No.1 on 27.01.2011 and from the date of the purchase the fuel meter of the vehicle is not working properly. The Complainant makes a complaint about the said problem to the OP No.1 within 2 days and the OP No.1 assured the Complainant that the said meter will be changed at the time of the service as the same is not available this time. The Complainant’s husband gave the vehicle for the service to the recognized service station OP
-2-
No.2 and informed about the complaint and previous assurance of the OP No.1. The OP No.2 told the Complainant that at present they do not have fuel meter and fuel gauge and shall change it at the next service. The Complainant in next service requested the OP No.2 to change the defective meter and gauge with a new one because he was having a lot of problem with that defective meter but the OPs avoided to change the same. The Complainant’s husband having no option gave the legal notice to the OPs on 25.07.2011. The OPs have not paid any heed and always avoided to change the defective meter in spite of the repeated request as well as the service of the legal notice also which is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence this complaint.
The OP No.1has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant had purchased a Honda motorcycle model Shine from the answering OP on 27.01.2011. The said vehicle was in a sound and perfect running condition and there was absolutely no defect in the same at the time of delivery. The Complainant had received the delivery of the said vehicle without any demur or protest. After the purchase of the said vehicle from the showroom of the OP No.1 the Complainant never contacted the OP No.1 nor has the OP No.1 received any complaint from the Complainant with respect to the said vehicle. The answering OP has no knowledge about any such alleged legal notice. The said vehicle was delivered to the Complainant by the answering OP in a sound and perfect running condition and there were absolutely no defects in the vehicle at the time of delivery. The Complainant has never contacted the answering OP after taking the delivery of the said vehicle from the showroom of the answering OP and there has never been any complaint of any nature by the Complainant made to the answering OP. The answering OP has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party in
-3-
the present complaint. The complaint is devoid of all merits and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
The OP No.2 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the vehicle of the Complainant was brought in the workshop of the OP No.2 firstly on 22.02.2011 for free service, but no complaint about the speedometer or fuel meter was made. On 30.04.2011 the Complainant was again brought for second service where the fuel meter was asked to be checked whereupon the fuel meter was checked and it was repaired with minor adjustments. On 30.06.2011 the vehicle was again brought for third service where there was complaint about the fuel meter and the complaint was found to be genuine but as the meter was not available in the stock, hence it could not be changed and the Complainant was told that after getting meter from the Company it will be changed in the next free service but the meter could not be made available by the Company, hence it could not be changed. Thereafter, for some time the meter could not be changed because of its unavailability. Now it is available, hence it can be changed but the Complainant is not bringing her vehicle for replacement of the fuel meter.
The Complainant has filed her affidavit with 6 annexures. The OP No.1 has filed the affidavit of Sri Sumeet Rastogi, Proprietor, Radiant Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. The OP No.2 has filed the affidavit of Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Director, BEEARR Honda/Premier Car Sales Ltd. and 5 annexures with the WS.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
In this case, the only dispute with the OPs is that the Complainant’s fuel meter was defective but it was not changed by the OPs, hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant’s
-4-
vehicle’s fuel meter was defective one but it was not changed by the OPs and hence they committed deficiency in service or not.
In this case, the OP No.2 has admitted that the fuel meter was not available with them, therefore it could not be changed but now it was available and so it can be changed. The vehicle was taken by the Complainant’s husband for replacement of the fuel meter but it could not be changed as the same was not available with OP No.2 which is evident from the admission of OP No.2 in this regard. Since the fuel meter was made available by OP No.1 after lapse of much time, therefore it is clear that the OP No.1 did not take effective steps to provide fuel meter to the OP No.2 at the earliest so that fuel meter of the Complainant’s vehicle could not be changed by the OP No.1. Obviously, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the fuel meter replaced with the OPs. The Complainant also appears to have been harassed in this case, therefore she is also entitled to compensation as also cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to change the fuel meter of the Complainant’s vehicle free of cost.
The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President
Dated: 20 November, 2015
