BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:327 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 26.11.2015.
Date of Decision:29.03.2017
Amit Kumar son of Shri Mool Chand, resident of VPO Bond Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Shri Shyam Bajaj, Meham Road Opposite Public Health Office, District Bhiwani.
- Bajaj Auto Akrudi, Pune.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Complainant in person.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased Motor Cycle Pulsar 180 vide registration No. HR19J-5485 amounting to Rs. 74500/- dated 03.02.2015 from OP no. 1. It is alleged that he got insured the vehicle from OP no. 2. It is alleged that after the purchase of the motor cycle there was noise in the engine of the motor cycle since the beginning and consumption of fuel was also excess. It is alleged that he visited OP no. 1 several times to get rectify the defect in the motor cycle but every time he found defect in the motor cycle after getting it from the workshop of OP no. 1. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has deliberately not attached copy of the owner’s manual so as to conceal the fact. It is submitted that there is no other cogent or convincing evidence nor has the complainant submitted any such expert report or opinion. It is submitted that there is no noise in the engine of the motorcycle of complainant as alleged in the complaint. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that he had purchased the motor cycle in question on 03.02.2015 from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 03.02.2015 Annexure C-4 for a consideration of Rs. 74,500/-. He submitted that after the purchase of the motor cycle there was noise in the engine of the motor cycle since the beginning and consumption of fuel was also excess. He submitted that he visited OP no. 1 several times to get rectify the defect in the motor cycle but every time he found defect in the motor cycle after getting it from the workshop of OP no. 1.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant come to OP no. 1 on 05.06.2015 after running of 2953 Kms of the motor cycle for second service. Thereafter, complainant came to OP no. 1 on 31.10.2015 for the complaint of the noise in engine. The mechanic of the OP no. 1 got rectify the defect. He further submitted that again the complainant came to OP no. 1 on 21.11.2015 with the same problem and he was asked to come to the workshop of 24.11.2015 but he did not turn up. He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is false and baseless.
8. We have perused the record of the case carefully. Admittedly, the complainant approached the OP no. 1 with the complaint of noise in engine on various occasions. As per the job card dated 05.06.2015 Annexure R-5 there is mention of noise in engine. Again vide job card dated 21.11.2015 Annexure R-8 noise in engine is reported by the complainant. Admittedly, there is noise in the engine of the complainant and the complainant has taken his motor cycle to the workshop of OP no. 1 but the said defect could not be rectified. The motor cycle is within the warranty period. The Ops are liable to provide service to the complainant, if there is any fault in the motor cycle, they are responsible. We have come to this conclusion that the engine of the motor cycle is having inherent defect. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to replace the engine of the motor cycle of the complainant. The complainant is directed to take his motor cycle to the workshop of OP no. 1 within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and the Ops are directed to comply with this order within 3 weeks from the date of delivery of motor cycle by the complainant to them. If the Ops failed to comply with this order within the stipulated period, then they shall be liable to deposit Rs. 2,000/- as cost with this District Forum. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 29.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
