DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 126/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
10.05.2021 25.05.2021 16.10.2023
Complainant/s:- | SRI JOY BURMAN, S/o Manu Burman of 7/1, North Nowdapara Road, Anushree Pally, P.O. Ariadaha, P.S. Belghoria, North 24 Parganas, Kol 700057. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - The Proprietor of Cynosure Manik’s Auto Center of Madhyamgram Chumatha, P.O. & P.S. Madhyamgram, Kol 700129.
- The Authority in charge Cynosure Manik’s Auto Center of Belghoria Branch, P.O. & P.S. Belghoria, Kol – 700057.
- The Managing Director of Hero Motocorp Ltd. of 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, P.O & P.S Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110057.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to hand over new Bike replacing the defective Bike which is under the custody of O.P No. 2 or O.Ps be directed to refund the purchase price of the Bike in favour of the Complainant, compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony, pain and anxiety and Rs. 50,000 as unnecessary harassment and cost of the case amounting to Rs. 20,000/-.
He alleged in the petition of complaint that he purchased one new motor bike manufactured by O.P No. 3 through O.P No. 2 on 29/06/2020 with financial assistance of TATA Capital Financial Service Ltd. and O.P No. 1 issued one invoice of Rs. 85,350/- in favour of the Complainant. After purchasing of the said bike petitioner faced great trouble for smooth running of the said bike on road. Complainant went to the service station of O.Ps for more than 18-20 times but each time O.P’s service centre repaired the same but problem was continued as before. Petitioner alleged complaint before the O.P No. 3 vide complaint no. 106351220188 but they did not resolve the problem of the said bike. On 04/12/2020 Complainant again went before the O.P No. 2 for repairing of the said bike and they issued one job card and when the petitioner went for delivery for his bike then O.P claimed extra amount of Rs. 300 from the petitioner and petitioner found that said bike not yet repaired properly. After lapse of 7 days petitioner did not receive any call from the O.P.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 126/2021
Thereafter petitioner through his friend Uttam Das emailed to the O.P 3 on 12/10/2020 and on 19/01/2021 and also lodged complaint to the Consumer Affairs Department vide complaint no. 2438888. Lastly O.P No. 2 sent one demand notice to the Complainant informing if the bike is not taken from the O.P No. 2 workshop then Rs. 50/- garage charge will be applied per day which is totally unjustified.
Hence, the Complainant filed this case.
O.P. No. 1 contesting this case by filing a W/V. He denied the entire allegations. He further stated that on 04/12/2020 Complainant placed his bike for servicing at the workshop of O.P No. 1 Belghoria and accordingly bike was accepted for servicing purpose and servicing was done properly with free of cost.
But a charge of Rs. 300/- was claimed as cost of change of mobil. After completion of servicing men of O.P No. 1 intimated the Complainant about the completion of the service and asked him to take delivery of the same through mobile phone but Complainant was delaying to take delivery of the same. Thereafter, Complainant sent a legal notice on 17/03/2021 and O.P No. 1 gave a reply. But due insufficiency of address reply was returned back to the lawyer of O.P No. 1. However, bike is still now lying in the workshop of O.P No. 1 and Complainant is at liberty to take delivery of the bike paying garage charge @ Rs. 50/- per day as per their claims and practice. The bike is in very good condition after its servicing. He prays for dismissal of the case.
O.P No. 3 filed another W/V. He denied the entire allegations made in the petition of complaint. He further contended that the present case is nothing but an abuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed.
TRIAL
During trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. O.P No. 1-3 filed questionnaires and Complainant gave answer in respect of questionnaires of O.P no. 1 and O.P No. 3.
DOCUMENTS
Complainant produced the following documents:-
- Xerox copy of e-mail dated 19/01/2021 (running page no. 5).
- Xerox copy of e-mail dated 12/12/2020 (running page no. 6).
- Xerox copy of driving license. (running page no. 7).
- Xerox copy of Barrackpore ARTO, West Bengal. (running page no. 8).
- Xerox copy of TATA AIG INSURANCE (policy certificate) (running page no. 9).
- Xerox copy of letter dated 04/02/2021(running page no. 10).
- Xerox copy of bike deposit receipt. (running page no. 11).
- Xerox copy of acknowledgment receipt. (running page no. 12-12A).
- Xerox copy of money receipt. (running page no. 13-15).
- Xerox copy of challan. (running page no. 16).
- Xerox copy of vehicle invoice details. (running page no. 17).
- Xerox copy of tax invoice. (running page no. 18).
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 126/2021
- Xerox copy of second free service(running page no. 19).
- Xerox copy of first free service. (running page no. 20).
- Xerox copy of postal receipt. (running page no. 21).
BNA
Complainant filed BNA, O.P No. 3 filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant, W/V filed by O.P No. 1 and W/V filed by O.P No. 3. We have also carefully gone through the affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant and documents filed by the Complainant (Xerox).
It is admitted position that Complainant purchased one motor bike from the O.P No. 1 which has been manufactured by O.P No. 3. Complainant alleged that after purchasing of the said motor bike he felt some problem and went before service centre of O.P No. 1-3 on several occasion and they repaired the same but problem was continued. It is also admitted position that on 04/12/2020 he deposited the said bike before the service centre i.e. O.P No. 2 and they had received the same.
It is also admitted position that O.P No. 2 repaired the same but he claimed Rs. 300/- as charge for change of mobil of the said motor bike. But Complainant was not agreed to pay the same. It is also admitted position that since then Complainant did not take back the said motor bike. Complainant alleged that he did not receiv any intimation from the O.P No. 2. It is the case of the O.P No. 1-3 that Rs. 50/- per day garage charge was claimed but Complainant was not agreed to pay the same. They further argued before this Commission that vehicle has repaired properly and they are ready to deliver the same if Complainant give the garage charge @ Rs. 50/- per day.
We find from the record that aforesaid vehicle is lying since 04/12/2020 before the O.P No. 2 who is the representative of O.P No. 3 but O.P No. 1-3 failed to produce any document before this Commission in support of the fact that immediately after 04/12/2020 O.P No. 1-3 or other representative asked the Complainant to take back the said motor bike from their garage. Moreover, O.P No. 1-3 failed to produce any guideline that if any person does not take delivery of vehicle then he shall bound to pay Rs. 50/- per day. In absence of any such declared norms, Complainant should not asked to pay the same in favour of the O.P No. 1-3 or in favour of O.P No. 2. Accordingly the aforesaid claim of Rs. 50/- per day by the O.P No. 1-3 or O.P No. 2 is not justified, legal and valid.
O.P No. 1-3 in their W/V stated that Rs. 300/- was charged from the Complainant for the value of mobil which was charged at the time of servicing.
We think that it is justified and Complainant should be asked to pay the same.
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./
: : 4 : :
C.C. No. 126/2021
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.P 1-3 are service provider. We also find that Complainant filed this complaint within period of limitation and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that Complainant is entitled to get some relief.
In the result the present complaint is succeeds in part.
Hence ,
It is ordered,
That the present case vide no. C.C./126/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P No. 1 and 3 and allowed ex-parte against O.P No. 2 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.P No. 1-3 in favour of the Complainant.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly or severally are directed to hand over the aforesaid motor bike in favour of the Complainant with good running condition after taking Rs. 300/- only from the Complainant within 45 days from this day.
Considering the facts and circumstances prayer for compensation is rejected. O.P No. 1-3 are directed to comply the aforesaid order positively within 45 days from this day, failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
