Order No. -21                                                                                                       Dt.- 18/12/2015

       Smt. Bina Choudhuri, Member

  This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P.Act 1986.

  The brief case of the complainant is that he purchased a motor cycle being model YAMAHA YBR110 on 10/11/2012 for a sum of Rs.53,995/- from the opposite party and availed the after sales service from the O.P. It is alleged that during service on 19/01/2014 the technician of O.P. spoiled thread of the crank case of the said motor vehicle and replaced that by oversized plug. Thereafter on 20/11/2014 during servicing of the vehicle again same fault done by the technician of the O.P. On 19/01/2015 the complainant noticed engine oil leakage and on 20/01/2015 placed the said vehicle to the O.P. for servicing. The machanic roll of the Teflon tape on the damaged plug and pressed the bolt to it and put adhesive to resist leakage  of the engine oil. Due to the fault of the technician of the O.P. the complainant has to suffer loss, mental pain and agony. Alleging dificiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice of the O.P.  the complainant files this case.

The opposite party contested the case by filing a Written Version  denying and disputing the allegations  of the complainant. The specific case of the O.P. is that the technician of the O.P. never ever spoiled the thread of the crank case of the vehicle and replaced that by over sized plug.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1) Is the case maintainable as alleged ?

2) Is the complainant a consumer?

3) Is there any deficiency in service and  Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the O.P.?

4) Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayer for? If so, to what extent? 

DECISION WITH REASONS

         All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

         Seen and perused the petition of complaint supported by affidavit, written version filed by the O.P. without affidavit, Written arguments and all other documents filed by both aparties. We have also heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both parties in full.

   On consideration of all these we find that the  O.P. is carrying his business within the territorial  jurisdiction and the claim of the complainant is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and the case was filed on 27/03/2015 i.e. within the period of limitation of two years from the date (19/01/2014) on which cause of action has been arisen. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that this case is well maintainable. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the technician of the O.P. spoiled the crank case of the motor-vehicle of the complainant and replaced that by oversized plug resulting in leakage of the engine oil and due to negligent act and fault on the part of the technician of the O.P. the complainant has to face loss. He also submitted that the entire service speaks of sheer deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. He further submitted that the O.P. vide letter dt.06/02/2015, in reply to the letter of the complainant being Ref.no. 036/comp/14-15 dt. 02/02/2015 admitted that the technician of the O.P. spoiled crank case of the vehicle in question and suggested the complainant to get the damaged part replaced with the cost to be borne by the complainant. But the O.P. in his written version denied the aforesaid fact without supporting any affidavit or without filing any documentary evidences in support of his case. In reply the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. only denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the O.P. is not liable for deficiency in service. On careful consideration of materials on record specially in reply letter dt.06/02/2015 of O.P. we find that the O.P. has admitted that “ the miscreants (technician who spoiled the crank case) could not be traced”. Therefore we can safely hold that the O.P. cropped up the new story in its written version denying the admitted fact, to save its own skin to deprive the complainant to get his legitimate claim in the matter of his vehicle in question. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P. is liable and guilty  for deficiency in service  and Unfair Trade Practice as alleged by the complainant  and the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as specified below.

    All points are disposed of accordingly.

    In the result the case succeeds.

     Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

     that the case is allowed on contest in part with cost of Rs.1,000/-(litigation cost).

     The O.P., the National Motors is hereby directed to replace the damaged/spoiled portion of crankcase of the said motor vehicle being Model YAMAHA YBR 110, free of cost and free service charge within 30 days from this date of order for his aforesaid deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice and to pay to the complainant aforesaid litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within 30 days from this date of order failing which the complainant is at liberty to realise the same amount of cost and execute the order by putting this order into execution in accordance with law.

              Let copy of this final order be supplied free of cost forthwith to the parties/ their Ld. Advocates/agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by general post, in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987.