Tripura

West Tripura

CC/99/2015

Umesh Sarkar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director TVS Motors & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Saha, Mr.S.Pandit, Mr.A.Debnath.

02 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   99   of   2015
        
Sri Umesh Sarkar,
S/O- Pradip Sarkar,
Durgabari, Master Para,
Bamutia, West Tripura.               ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___

1.   The Managing Director TVS Motors,
Jayalakshmi Estates, 5th Floor 8,
Haddows Road,
Chennai- 600 006,
Tamil Nadu, India.

2.   The Manager,
Chowdhury Motors,
Authorized TVS main Dealer,
Shibnanagar, College Road.      .........Opposite parties.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the complainant        : Sri Anjan Debnth,
                      Sri Swarup Pandit,
                      Sri Pulak Saha,
                       Sri Bhaskar Debroy, 
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                :  Dr. Pankaj Banik,
                      Advocate.                                         

                  
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  02.05.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case was filed by one Umesh Sarkar against the Managing Director TVS Motors alleging about deficiency of service. The case of the petitioner in short is that he purchased a motor cycle from the O.P., TVS Motors on payment of Rs.75,507/-. The motor cycle was purchased through private finance.  After few days of the delivery the motor cycle had some faults. It was disturbing and speed was less then 30 km/h. The petitioner made contact with the O.P. and the bike was placed in the workshop. But it was not repaired properly. There was noisy sound and smoke. So, the petitioner demanded replacement. The vehicle was repaired 4 times but defect not cured. Demand of replacement made by the petitioner was not responded. So, this case is filed for redress.
    
2.        O.P. Managing Director, TVS Motors appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that 660 km was run by the purchased motor cycle on 25.08.15. The problem as stated by the petitioner was not found. Complainant visited the workshop on 01.09.15 again the motor cycle ran 848 km. On 28.09.15, 3100 km was ran. On 26.10.15, 3535 km. The condition was good and the complaint was bogus, therefore, it is liable to be rejected. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the motor cycle purchased by the petitioner was defective?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get redress for the deficiency of service of O.P.? 

4.        Petitioner side produced the copy of Tax Invoice, Trade Certificate, Demand Notice, reply of Demand Notice, delivery of vehicle. Also examined one witness i.e., Umesh Sarkar.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the Job card and also examined one witness, Rajesh Roy Choudhury.

On the basis of evidence as produced by both the parties we shall now determine the above points.
             FINDIGNS   &   DECISION:
7.        Petitioner produced statement on affidavit of two witnesses but P.W. 2, Samrat Das did not appear to support the petitioner's case. The contention of the petitioner is that the motor cycle was defective one. In support of it he produced no evidence of mechanic or any supportive evidence. The contention of the O.P. is that the motor cycle was not defective at all. Haradhan Das, mechanic of 'Choudhury Motors' clearly reported that the motor cycle was in good condition. He checked the entire electronic point of important places of the motor cycle. It was found in good condition.  Petitioner stated that the mileage of the vehicle was less then 30 km/h. But it is found that in the short period the motor cycle crossed longer distance as stated by the O.P. It is true that he visited the workshop several times. According to the O.P. his problem was answered and the vehicle was in good condition. Noisy sound and smoke as stated by the petitioner was not seen by any other mechanic. The vehicle can be replaced if it is found  not repairable. On 25.08.15 the vehicle was repaired and delivered. On 02.09.15 again the vehicle was kept in the workshop. On 16.09.15 it was kept in the workshop. On 26.09.15 it was again placed in the workshop. Samrat Das, P.W.2 did not appear before the court to support the statement of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was defective one is not established by convincing evidence. After hearing both sides and appreciation of evidence before us we are not convinced to support the petitioners case. We are not in a position to say that the motor cycle was defective one and it is to be replaced by the O.P. Petitioners case is therefore has no merit. O.P. has no deficiency of service. both points are decided accordingly against the petitioner. 

8.        In view of our above findings  over the  two points this petition is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost.   
              
                             Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.