Haryana

StateCommission

RP/97/2015

Honda Motorcycle and scooter India Pvt. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sube Singh - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Revision Petition No.97 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 16.12.2015

Date of Decision: 02.05.2016

 

1.      Honda Motorcycle and scooter India Pvt. Ltd, commercial Complex II, Sector 49-50, golf Course Extension road, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Authorised signatory, Sh.Jitender Bhatla, Dy. Manager, Legal & Secretarial.

 2.     Ashwani Automobiles, Plot No.8-9, Santro Enclave, Near Sheesh Mahal, Delhi road, Hisar through its Rajan Mittal Partner, Ashwani Automobiles.

                                                                             .….Petitioners

 

Versus

 

Sube Singh S/o Dharampal r/o H.No.80, Dev Nagar, Behind Life Line Hospital,Gangwa Road, Hisar.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Munish Goel, Advocate for the petitioners.

                    None for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

In complaint no.448 of 2014 respondent alleged that his motor cycle was not working properly, whereas revisionist/opposite parties (O.Ps.) denied that version.  Vide impugned order dated 21.01.2015 complaint was allowed and it was ordered as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to opposite parties, to repair the motorcycle in question free of cost and to hand over it to the complainant in perfect working order.  In case motorcycle is not repairable, then to replace it, with a new one, of the same make. Needful be done within a period of 15 days, after getting the copy of this order. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/- against the opposite parties, who shall be jointly and severally liable to comply the order.”

2.      Thereafter complainant filed execution petition No.18 on 16.03.2015, wherein impugned order dated 17.09.2015 was passed to the effect that the motor cycle be replaced. 

3.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.2 preferred this revision.

4.      Arguments of only revisionist’s counsel are heard because nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

5.      Vide order dated 21.01.2015 O.ps. were directed to repair motor cycle and if it was beyond repairs then the same should be replaced. There is no evidence on the file showing that the motor cycle is not repairable.  Rather from the perusal of job card dated 18.02.2015 the motor cycle was repaired by the O.Ps. When there is not even iota of evidence to presume that motor cycle is not repairable, there is no question of replacing the same.  Order dated 21.01.2015 was conditional and not absolute. When the conditions of order dated 21.01.2015 are not fulfilled, O.ps. cannot be ordered to replace the motorcycle. Resultantly impugned order dated 17.09.2015 is set aside and revision is allowed.

 

May 02nd, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.