Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/409

HERO MOTOCORP LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIV RAM YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision :  29.01.2015

First Appeal No.409/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 22.03.2012 in Complaint Case No. 636/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092)

       

 

M/s Hero Motorcorp Ltd.

(Formaly known as M/s Hero Honda

Motors Limited)

34, Community Centre

Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar

New Delhi-110057 ……Appellant

                                                      

VERSUS

1. Sh. Shiv Ram Yadav

A-1058, Durga Marg

•  

Delhi-110092               …..Respondent No. 1

 

2. M/s Auto Needs India Pvt. Ltd.

E-1/4, Pandav Nagar

Opp. Mother Dairy

•  

Delhi-110092            ......Respondent No. 2

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

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)

Judgment     

1.         The appellant M/s Hero Motors Ltd has impugned the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the District Forum, New Delhi.  Vide impugned order the Ld.District Forum directed the appellant herein (OP-2) to replace the vehicle or alternatively pay the costs of the vehicle.  Compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation charges Rs.3000/- were also awarded.
2.         Facts in brief are that the complainant Mr.Shivram Yadav (Respondent No-1) had purchased the Motor Cycle, Hero Honda maker model CD Delux Black on 29.03.2010 from the appellant. The price of the Motorcycle was Rs.38,860/-. 
3.         Grievance of the complainant was that the vehicle from the very beginning did not function properly. There was continuous noise in the engine.  The complainant took the motorcycle to the Service Centre on 18.04.2010 but the problem continued persisting. The next visit to the Service Station was on 18.06.2010. Again despite repairs, the problem could not be rectified.  Motorcycle was taken to the Service Centre on 8 or 10 occasions.
4.         The sole defence raised by the appellant was that there was ‘no deficiency in service’. 
5.         We have heard the Counsel for the appellant Mr.Murthy, Advocate and respondent Mr.Shiv Ram at length.
6.         Perusal of the job cards dated 18^th April, 2010 and 23^rd May, 2010 shows that there was existence of problem of noise in the vehicle. Besides this and the vibration noise there was a complaint of the vehicle tendering to turn to the right while in the running condition.
7.         It is not the case of the appellant herein that the problem did not exist in the vehicle when it was brought to the Service Centre.
8.         It does not stand to reason as to why in a new vehicle such serious problems should exist.  The case of the complainant is that despite the job done by the service centre, the problem continued persisting.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the services which are free of charges were also done.
9.         The plea does not help the appellant in any manner for the reason that complaints of the complainant were attended to besides doing free services. We, therefore, find it fit to modify the orders passed by the Ld. District Forum to the extent that the appellant herein/ OP-2 shall simply pay the costs of the vehicle to the complainant.  The complainant shall return the vehicle to the appellant within the period of 60 days from today. Directions relating to the payment of compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Litigation of Rs.3000/- are not interfered with.
10. Appeal is disposed of and the file be consigned to record room.

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S.C. Jain)

Member