DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 237/2019

vs.

Coram:       Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

1. Sh. Shambhu Yadav (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Shiv Cycle Store (in short OP)  alleging that on 22.07.2019 he bought a new bicycle of Avon company from the store of 88 A & B cycle market Jhandewalan extension for Rs. 4,592/- against receipt but OP had demanded Rs. 4,600/-. At that time complainant was not having cash in his pocket he offered to pay through ATM card but OP refused, complainant was compelled to visit Videocon Building for ATM machine and after withdrawing the money he paid the amount to the complainant. When he was standing to supervise the assembly of cycle, he was forced to sit down by the OP as to avoid him to see the tightening of the cycle. After taking the delivery of the vehicle it was making a noisy sound from rubbing of front wheel, the complainant could not ascertain it exactly because of darkness. He hired for Rs. 300/- the three-wheeler and came at R.K. Puram, Sector-4 New Delhi.

In the next morning when the complainant’s child went to ride the bicycle, it was giving the same rubbing sound and it was found that front wheel is torn out, the bell was not working properly and bicycle was not tightened properly. On 25.07.2019 the condition of cycle was clicked into picture, then complainant went to the OP, he was informed and shown picture that complainant was delivered a damaged bicycle but OP refused to accept the fault  and also refused to replace by new bicycle. Rather, the OP claimed that there was no guarantee of tyre and the tyres would have been damaged by complainant’s children. The OP failed to consider that delivery of bicycle was in the night and it was not feasible to rush to OP in the night but it paid no heed by the OP. the matter was also written to P.S. Paharganj, who advised the matter pertains to Consumer Court, that is why the complaint was filed seeking another bicycle or return of Rs. 4,600/- apart from compensation for spoil of precious time, mental and physical harassment.

2. The OP through its proprietor Shri Vinesh Arora does not dispute purchase of bicycle by the complainant from OP, however, the complaint was opposed in respect of other allegation, briefly the complainant never visited its shop on 04.10.2019 for any defect or otherwise, the complaint was filed all of a sudden. The Bill/ Invoice was issued against GST and Bill was prepared as per usage. The main issue of complaint is of tyres or rim and as per policy of Avon Cycle Ltd. the guarantee consist of frame only and not for tyres,  apart from OP is not bound to give any repair or maintenance. However, despite it, the OP was ready to give new tyre to the complainant. The claim of Rs. 15,000/- is invalid claim.
3. Thence, complainant filed his affidavit of evidence while referring and relying upon invoice receipt as well as the copy of complaint written to P.S. Paharganj. On the other side, OP was given opportunity to lead evidence but on its failure, the right to lead evidence was closed on 29.11.2022.
4. The complainant filed written arguments and also made oral submissions, which are on the line of his evidence and complaint and he also supplemented that the bicycle (Make Avon 26” as mentioned in invoice no. 1121 dated 22.07.2019) was never used since the present complaint was filed and bicycle is still lying at his home and it is non-functional.
5. The case of parties is considered inclusive of the proceedings. The OP had filed reply but it has not taken shape of evidence for want of leading evidence.

Moreover, during the pendency of complaint, on 06.11.2019, the complainant had proposed for another new bicycle, OP had also agreed for the same but complainant insisted that he will also keep the earlier bicycle with him.

          The situation emerged is that from the very inception of buying the bicycle, it was not found satisfactory to be plied by the children vis-à-vis it was not made functional despite request of the complainant. Moreover,  the OP had also conceded to replace the bicycle with new bicycle in lieu of the bicycle sold to the complainant. By taking into account all these circumstances, the complainant has proved that the bicycle delivered was not okay to be ride and ply by children vis-à-vis OP had conceded for new bicycle and at that time complainant’s insistence to keep the other cycle with him was not justifiable. Therefore, the complainant has proved his complaint in his favour and against the OP.

6. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP while directing the OP  to give and deliver new bicycle in lieu of the old bicycle Make Avon 26” (in case exact model is not prevalent as on today then approximate equivalent thereto) in the lieu of previous bicycle or to return Rs. 4,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization of the amount to the complainant. However, when the new bicycle is delivered, in that eventuality the complainant will return the said bicycle lying with him, which will be acknowledged by the OP of its receipt. The delivery of new bicycle or in alternate return of the amount will be within 30 days by the OP from the date of receipt of this order.

In view of the above, no order as to other relief and cost.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 25^th January of 2023.