Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/181/2019

Sharnjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Enfield - Opp.Party(s)

Dikshit Arora Adv.

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	181 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	19.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	29.11.2019

 

Sharnjeet Singh son of Sardar Harmail Singh, resident of House No.115, Bank Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1.  Royal Enfield, O/o Tiruvottiyur High Road, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai, Pin Code: 600019 through its Director.

Second Address: 7, HSIDC, Old Palm, Gurgaon Road, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana, Pin Code: 122005.

2.  Manmohan Auto Stores, Plot No.116, Near Homtel Hotel, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Dikshit Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Polly Shera, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), while partly allowing his consumer complaint bearing No.429 of 2018 against opposite party No.2 only. The Forum directed opposite party No.2 to refund Rs.252/-, which the complainant paid on 11.08.2018 during the first service besides awarding Rs.1,500/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony & harassment and Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.             The case before the Forum, in nutshell, was that the appellant/complainant, purchased a motorbike from opposite party No.1 on 26.05.2017 and on 11.08.2018, facing problem of rear brakes, he approached opposite party No.2, who charged Rs.252/- for changing the rear brake shoes with labour charges of Rs.34.82. Again, facing the same problem, the motorbike was taken to opposite party No.2 on 28.08.2018, when it again changed the rear brake shoes by charging Rs.252/- alongwith Rs.118.89 as labour charges. It was the case of the complainant that initially on 11.08.2018, opposite party No.2 charged him without replacing the rear brake shoes and that was the reason Opposite Party No.2 on 27.08.2018 again charged money from him on account of replacing new rear brake shoes. Opposite party No.1, the manufacturer, denied the allegation on the ground that the complainant got the brake shoes/pads changed on both occasions at his own free will, instructions, supervision and left the Service Centre on both occasions fully satisfied. Opposite party No.2 also took similar plea while refuting the allegations made in the complaint.

3.             In our opinion, firstly the Forum straightaway rejected the allegation of the Opposite Parties that the complainant himself was responsible for the wear and tear of the brake shoes as he participated in some motor bike rally as the Opposite Parties did not place on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to substantiate the said allegation.

4.             The Forum also rightly held that either Opposite Party No.2, in the first instance, on 11.08.2019 did not install the rear brake shoes, for which money was charged from the complainant without providing due services or if the rear brake shoes were replaced, then, certainly, the same were of sub-standard quality, which were not compatible to the branded motor bike in question, otherwise, there would not have been any such occasion to replace the same part within a span of few days of its installation. 

5.             In our considered opinion, opposite party No.2 did not provide proper and due service to the complainant. Brake shoes plays a very imperative role in putting on brakes of a vehicle, whether it will be a two wheeler or four wheeler. In the present case, it could be a big threat to the life of the complainant as he again experienced the same problem of rear break not putting on while riding his motorbike. Had the motorbike not stopped or malfunctioned due to rear break problem, it would have led to an untoward incident. When, the complainant initially approached with the problem of the rear break of his motorbike not functioning properly, it was the duty of opposite party No.2 to ensure rectification of the said problem as the life of the complainant was at stake but it failed to do so and on 27.08.2018, break shoes were replaced. Thus, for above deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2, the Forum directly allowed the complaint partly but seeing the physical and mental harassment suffered by the complainant and as his life was also at stake, the compensation awarded by the Forum seems to be on the lower side. The same needs to be adequately enhanced. To this extent, the impugned order passed by the Forum needs to be modified.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed with no order as to cost. The impugned order dated 15.07.2019 is modified only to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Forum to the tune of Rs.1,500/- in Para 12(b) of its order, is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Rest of the impugned order shall remain intact. The order be now complied with by opposite party No.2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it (opposite party No.2) shall be liable to pay penal interest @9% p.a. as per directions of the Forum in Para 13 of its order.

7.             Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

8.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

29.11.2019.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad