Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/451

SHIVA AUTOMOBILE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAKUNTALA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 21.02.2018

First Appeal No. 451/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 11.04.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 151/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumNorth-East NandNagri, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

M/S Shiva automobile

Through its manager

AT E-10, Main 100 Ft. Road,

Near DurgaPuriChowk,

West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi-93

                             .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Smt. Shakuntala Rani

W/O Sh. Kripa Ram Gupta

R/O H. NO. C-1/143, Yamuna Vihar,

Delhi-53                                               ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum North East,NandNagri Delhi-92. Vide impugned orders appellant/OP-1 M/s Shiva Automobiles was directed to pay to the complainant/respondent herein an amount of Rs. 7025/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 25.05.2011 till the date of its realization. Costs of litigation of Rs. 5000/- were also awarded.
2.         Facts of the complaint which are not in dispute are that a scooter of make ‘LML 4 Stroke’ was purchased by the complainant from OP-1 on 16.07.2010. Scooter was under warranty for a period of three years or a run of 30,000 kms.whichever was earlier.
3.         In April 2011, the complainant found her scooter in almost dead condition. Complainant took it to the service station of OP-1. After necessary repairs, an amount of Rs. 7025/- was charged by OP-1. Complainant had stated that the scooter was within the period of warranty.
4.         OP-2 the manufacturer of the scooter was proceeded against ex-parte. The defence raised by OP-1 was that the complainant had not availed of all six free services and for that reason she was not entitled to the facility of warranty.
5.         Ld. District Forum relied upon the version of the complainant to the effect that she had availed of all the free services. Ld. District Forum also relied upon the service book of the scooter filed by the complainant which proved the contention of the complainant that she had availed of all the free services.
6.         In appeal too, the OP-1 has taken a stand that the complainant never availed of any free service which disentitled her from the facility of warranty. The best evidence to prove the factum of non-availing of the free services was in possession of the OP-1/appellant herein. OP-1 could have produced the record of his workshop showing that the complainant never visited her workshop during the relevant period. In such a circumstance, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant/OP-I. Ld. District Forum has thus rightly held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service. There is no infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appellant is directed to comply with the orders dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum within a period of thirty days from today failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount accruing thereafter.
7.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)