Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/134/2020

Abhivishrut - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDB Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Soni

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.134 of 2020.

Date of Instt.:24.07.2020.

Date of Decision: 01.09.2023.

 

Abhivishrut son of Sh.Sant Lal resident of village Badopal District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                    Versus

 

SDB Automobiles (Royal Enfield Showroom) Sirsa Road, NH10 Bypass Road, Opposite Birla Mill, Fatehabad through its  Manager.

 

          ...Opposite Party.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh.Amit Kumar Soni, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Raman Sardana, Advocate for OP.        

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SMT.HARISHA MEHTA,MEMBER

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Royal Enfield Classic 350 ABS bike from Op on 15.11.2019 but that bike started creating problems in the last week of June, 2020; that the complainant lodged his complaint with the Op but it did not redress his grievance and further sent the complainant to Sachdeva Rim Work to remove the defect; that the mechanic of said workshop after tightening the spoke of Rim handed-over the bike to the complainant; that next morning the ABS system of the bike started creating noise, therefore, the complainant visited the Op on 08.07.2020 where the Op kept the bike with it by giving an assurance that the bike would be returned to the complainant by next week after removing the defect in the ABS; that the Op handed-over the bike to the complainant on 15.07.2020 after changing the swing arm (chimta) of the bike with old model of Royal Enfield Classic 350 and further failed to remove the defect in the same despite repeated requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                The Op appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer, concealment of material facts and maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that at the time of purchase of the vehicle every queries made by the complainant was removed and the bike was delivered to him in perfect running condition only after personally inspecting the said vehicle by the complainant; that as per the warrant terms and conditions of the bike, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer and the controversy involved in the compliant cannot be said to be a consumer dispute; that the complainant has contravened the warranty terms and conditions but still the job card has not been closed and still opened and genuine grievance would be redressed as per the warranty terms; that no noise and defect has been noticed by the mechanic of OP but the complainant remained adamant for the replacement of the bike without showing any defect in it; that on 15.07.2020 at the time of delivery of vehicle, the fact regarding affixing of swing arm (Chimta) of old model Royal Enfield Classic 350 only for trial basis was appraised to the complainant for his mental satisfaction with assurance that the same would be replaced with original as and when available. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of answering Op. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit CW1/Alongwith documents Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2 whereas learned counsel for the Op has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

4.                Final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has also been perused minutely.

5.                The complainant by way of this compliant has prayed for giving direction to the Op for changing  the Swing Arm of the bike besides cost of Rs.21,000/- for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.11,000/- being cost of litigation. Perusal of the case file reveals that the OP in its reply has specifically mentioned that the affixing of swing arm (Chimta) of old model Royal Enfield Classic 350 in the purchased bike of the complainant was only for trial basis and in due course original shall be affixed.  The complainant has failed to lead any sufficient evidence to prove that the fact regarding affixing of swing arm (Chimta) of old model Royal Enfield Classic 350 in the purchased bike was not in his knowledge.  The Op filed the reply only on 15.10.2020 and the complainant led his evidence by filing his duly sworn affidavit CW1/A only on 27.05.2022,therefore, it was open for the complainant to rebut the pleas/version taken by the OP in its reply but he has not done so.  Further, the complainant has also failed to produce any report of expert/mechanic to show that there was noise/defect in the bike in question, therefore, it cannot be said that the Op is involved in unfair trade practice and deficient in providing service to the complainant. However, the fact regarding affixing of swing arm (Chimta) of old model Royal Enfield Classic 350 in due course is not disputed. Moreover, the Op has also failed to place on file any warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in its reply, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to affix the original swing arm of the purchased bike of the complainant of the same model free of costs. The Op is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the awarded amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. 

7.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                          

Dated: 01.09.2023

                                                                                                        

         

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                       Member                              Member                              President