This complaint has been filed by Kamaljit Singh U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to change/replace the battery of vehicle in question without charging any amount. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and  for deficiency in service alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased RTR Apache 160 CC bike having chassis No.MD634KE46G2F59720, Engine No.OE4FG2007460 from opposite party no.1 on 30.1.2017 against valid receipt and bills and abovesaid vehicle is under warranty period. He has further pleaded that from the very beginning, the abovesaid bike was not started with self-start function, sometimes it’s worked or sometimes he starts vehicle by applying kick. He informed the opposite party no.1 about it but they assured him that they will remove the defect on the very first service, but he did not remove this problem. In the end of September 2017,the self start function of bike/motorcycle suddenly stopped working then he approached opposite partyno.1and complained him about the problem in vehicle and it was told by the opposite party no.1 that there is problem in battery of the vehicle in question which is not responding and opposite party no.1 told him that opposite party no.1 will replace the battery at the time of second free service because bike is under warranty. He has next pleaded that at the time of second free service, he requested the opposite party no.1 to replace the battery but it did not replace the battery. He approached the opposite parties many times and requested to replace the battery immediately because self start, horns and indicators of bike/motorcycle were also not working due to problem of battery. Ultimately on 5.1.2017 the opposite party no.1 totally refused to replace the battery of the vehicle in question and at that time they know the fact that warranty period of the vehicle in question is going to lapse. He requested the opposite parties to admit their claim, but they refused to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.

3.         Opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; the complaint is not within limitation and the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has filed the application by concealment of true facts. So, the complainant is liable to be penalized to the tune of Rs.50,000/- due to unnecessary harassment. On merits, it was admitted that complainant come on 29.11.2017 for second free service and the second free service as per rules was done by the agency and the complainant without any complaint was satisfied with the service. Whenever any customer comes in the workshop of agency, it is his duty to inform the agency regarding any defect in the vehicle and at the time of filing job card. In the job card maintained by the agency there are specific columns regarding the request made by the customer and the job to be done? The complainant came only for service and the service was done and the required charges for service was received. The job card of second free service clearly proves that nothing has been noticed of any defect by the consumer in the job card. The vehicle in dispute was free from any defect during the first and second free service and that was reason that no complaint was lodged by the complainant to the opposite party no.1.  It has next submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 27.1.2017 and the challan bearing serial no.2655 regarding the delivery of the vehicle in dispute was issued to the complainant while delivering the motor cycle to the complainant and the present complaint has been filed after the lapse of one year. The warranty period of the battery was one year. There is no complaint regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and moreover the alleged complaint is only regarding the battery installed in the motorcycle and the manufacturing agency of the battery is also necessary party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. So the question of suffering any financial loss by the complainant has not arisen. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5        Sh.Sukhdev Singh Prop. has tendered into evidence his own affidavit  Ex.OP-W-1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.     Ld.counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amaninder Singh Territory Manager Ex.OP-2/1 alongwith warranty and services limitation Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence.

7.       Written arguments filed on behalf of opposite parties.

8.     Complainant has neither filed written arguments nor appeared before Commission from 17.3.2021 onwards.

9.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the opposite parties; arguments advanced by its respective counsel and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

10.     Complainant submitted Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, R.C., invoice and sale letter of T.V.S. motorcycle purchased by him on 30.1.2017 from Sukhdev Automobiles, Dinanagar. As per complaint filed by the complainant, the bike purchased by him was giving trouble in auto start due to fault of battery. Complainant attached Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 the gate pass as proof of two services conducted by opposite party no.1 and alleged that opposite party never replaced the battery as required by him during both the services of motorcycle.

11.     Opposite party no.1 in their reply denied the allegation and said that complainant never asked them to replace the battery nor pointed out any such defect in the job card written before doing the service. As per Ex.OP-2 of opposite party nothing special is written in the job card to be repaired other than regular service.

12.    It is pertinent to mention that complainant has neither submitted the written arguments nor appeared before the Commission from 17.3.2021 onwards inspite of various opportunities given on dates 11.5.21, 26.6.21, 12.7.21, 10.8.21, 16.9.21 and 23.9.2021. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties.

13.    As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, it is observed that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.

14.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                     

                        (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                                        President 

Announced:                                                        (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)

September 29 2021                                                       Member

*MK*