BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                           Complaint no.      181 of 2014         

                                                          Date of Institution:  24.12.2014

                                                          Date of Decision:    1.9.2016     

Honey Madaan S/o Sh. Sunny Madaan, resident of H.No. 79, Mohata Garden, Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Manager/MD / Proprietor, Telmos Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Auth. Dealer) Decent Honda Two Wheeler Dabwali Road, Sirsa.

2. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana- 122050 (India)

                                                                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   Before:              SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.  

Present:           Sh.J.N. Monga, Advocate for complainant.

                      Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for Opposite parties.

ORDER

          In nutshell,  complainant’s case is that on 29.11.2013, he purchased an Activa Two wheeler for a sum of Rs.49000/- i.e. Rs.47,000/- being cost of the vehicle and Rs.2,000/- being the cost of accessories from Op No.1. On 17.11.2014, complainant handed over the aforesaid vehicle to op no.1 for routine service and complained about defect in self starter giving noise and seat lock and they kept the vehicle with them and asked him to come on next day. On the next day at about 12.00 noon complainant went to the workshop to collect his vehicle, but it was told that the vehicle was on test riding and will be handed over after 2/3 hours. At about 4.00 p.m. when he again went there, he was stunned to see that engine of vehicle was overhauled and then he took the photographs of the same.  The op no.1 without his consent has overhauled the vehicle resulting into devaluation thereof and decreasing its life and vehicle is still lying with op no.1. Initially, complainant was requested to take new vehicle in replacement thereof on the condition of paying 15% amount but lateron the Manager and others responsible of op no.1 have refused to have negotiation of any kind.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On notice, OPs appeared and contested the case by filing reply that they have duly serviced and repaired the vehicle well in time and after repair same is lying parked in the workshop of op no.1. The op no.1 has already sent notices on 25.11.2014 and then on 1.12.2014 to the complainant with the request to take back the delivery of the vehicle, but the complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the same. The ops have serviced and repaired the vehicle of the complainant as per his instructions and no loss has been caused to the vehicle.  Ops also denied the remaining allegations.

3.                By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, photographs Ex.C1 to C7, photograph of job card dated 17.11.2014 Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.CA, copy of A.D. receipt Ex.CC, postal receipt Ex.CD and one e-mail document as Ex.CD/1, whereas the Ops produced affidavit Ex.R1. copy of postal receipt Ex.R2, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R3, copy of postal receipt Ex.R4, letter written to complainant dated 1.12.2014 Ex.R5, copy of postal receipt Ex.R6, copy of letter dated 25.11.2014 as Ex.R7.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.

5.                The vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 29.11.2013 and after about one year the complainant handed over his abovesaid vehicle to the op no.1 for service with the complaint that self starter giving noise and there is extra noise in the vehicle and seat used to be unlocked without key. By that time the vehicle had already run 8011 Kms. as is evident from the job card dated 17.11.2014. If there was extra noise in the vehicle, same may be due to some defect in the engine for which engine was to be opened and the job card dated 17.11.2014 mentioning above said problems is duly signed by the complainant himself. The necessary job has been done by the opposite party no.1 and according to it, the vehicle was serviced and repaired as per the instructions of complainant which plea seems to be true as per job card duly signed by complainant. If there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it could not run for 8011 Kms. and extra noise after running of such Kms. can be due to mishandling by the complainant himself. 

6.                In view of above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to bring home the allegations in the complaint. Hence, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:1.9.2016                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                      Member