District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.

CC No.                 :69 of  2014

Date of Institution  :01.10.2014

Date of Decision.   :12.02.2015

Puneet Vadera son of Sh. Madan Lal resident of House No. 6/74, Gali Atma Singh Wali Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                                   …….   Complainant

                                      Versus

The Manager Randhawa Motors Bypass Jandiala Road Chownk, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

……. Opposite Party.

Complaint under Section 11, 12, 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

For the complainant         :         Sh. M.P. Arora Advocate

For the Opposite party    :         Sh. B.S. Teja Advocate

Quorum:     Sh. S.K. Goel, President

                   Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member

Order dictated by Sh. S.K. Goel, President

1        Sh. Puneet Vadera son of Madan Lal complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against Randhawa Motors Bypass Jandiala Road Chownk, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite party’)

2        The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a motorcycle of Honda Model Unicorn Dazzeler bearing registration No. PB46-K-5140 from the authorized dealer of Honda i.e. Dhariwal Honda Agency, near Bus Stand, Tarn Taran in the year 2012 and now the authorized dealer is Randhawa Motors Bypass Jandiala Road Chownk, Tarn Taran i.e. Opposite party. At the time of purchase the authorized dealer assured that they would provide the best services qua the repair etc. of the said motorcycle. It was alleged that said motorcycle was having defect of rear disk brake problem and therefore the complainant consulted the service centre/ authorized dealer for its repair for 2 to 3 times. But the opposite party told the complainant that the service centre was not having required spare parts to repair the said problem and every time they guided him to come after some days. In the month of Feb 2014, the complainant again visited the service centre for repair of the motorcycle and the opposite party assured him to come on the next day and also issued a job card bearing No. 854 dated 3.2.2014. Then the complainant visited the service centre after a day. But the official of the opposite party told him to come after two days as requisite spare parts were not available. Afterwards, the complainant again visited the service centre/ authorized dealer after two days. Again the opposite party told the complainant to come on the next day. It is further alleged that till today the complainant had visited the service centre/ authorized dealer several times but the opposite party failed to repair the motorcycle. It is further alleged that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service and moreover the complainant has suffered loss of business as well as mental and physical harassment. Even the opposite party refused to accept the legal notice. Hence the present complaint is filed directing the opposite party to remove the above said defects in the motorcycle of Honda Model Unicorn Dazzeler bearing No. PB46-K-5140 or secondly to replace the motorcycle with new motorcycle or thirdly to return the price/ charges for the purchase of the motorcycle of Honda Model Unicorn Dazzeler bearing No. PB46-K-5140. Apart from this, the complainant also prayed compensation Rs. 20,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3        Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, not coming to the Forum with clean hands, estoppel, bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that on 3.2.2014 the complainant visited with the problem of rear disc brake of his motorcycle and job card was issued to him. Moreover the motorcycle was repaired and problem was removed on the same day. Even the complainant had taken the trial of the motorcycle. But the complainant was adamant to replace all the parts of the disk brake which was already working properly. It is further submitted that defective parts were already replaced and these were functioning properly. It is further submitted that motorcycle is still lying with the opposite party and as per Honda policy the complainant has to pay Rupees 25/- per day for parking the vehicle. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4        To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in to evidence his affidavit Ex. C.1, affidavit of Jagtar Singh Ex. C.2 alongwith documents Ex. C.3 to C.7 and closed the evidence.

5        To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party has tendered in to evidence affidavit of Munish Kumar Manager of the opposite party Ex. OP/1 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7        The case of the complainant is that after purchasing of the motorcycle in question he visited the authorized service centre/ opposite party for the repair of the defect namely rear disk brake. However the opposite party failed to repair the same despite visiting many times and till today the repair was not done and motorcycle is still with them. On the other hand, the case of the opposite party is that the said motorcycle was having problem of rear disk brake and said defect was removed on the same day. But the complainant intended to replace of the parts of the rear disk brake of the motorcycle in question. Moreover the complainant is to pay Rs. 25/- per day for parking the vehicle.

8        The main controversy is whether the motorcycle in question has been repaired by the opposite party. Perusal of Job Card Ex. C.3 shows that the complainant visited the opposite party on 3.2.2014 with his motorcycle problem of rear disk brake. However there is nothing on the Job Card to show that the vehicle in question was repaired by the opposite party. There is no signature of the complainant or on his behalf in the column which is specifically provided in the Job Card. Even the complainant issued a legal notice Ex. C.4 dated 23.5.2014 to the opposite party for removing the said defect in the motorcycle in question. However the opposite party has not replied the said legal notice. No document has been produced by the opposite party to indicate that the defect of rear disk brake in the motorcycle in question was removed by them. During the arguments it is contended on behalf of opposite party that they are ready to remove the defect in the motorcycle in question.

9        As result of above discussion the complainant is partly accepted and the complainant is directed to approach the opposite party for getting the repair of his motorcycle in question and the opposite party is directed to remove the said defect within 15 days. It is also directed that in case the said defect is technically not repairable then the opposite party is required to replace the said parts to make the vehicle fit for roadworthy. The opposite party is also burdened Rs. 1,000/- as compensation due to deficiency in service. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum                                                       

12.02.2015                                                            President                                 

                                                                             Member