Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: In Person
For the Opp.Party : Sri S.K.Sahu, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
JUDGEMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant has purchased spare parts from the shop of Opp.Party on 06.01.2017 and fitted in his bike but in spite of changing of spare parts also old defects were found in the bike for which the complainant contacted the Opp.Party from time to time for rectification of the defects in the bike but till date the Opp.Party has not rectified the defects for which the complainant suffered a lot and finding no other option approach this forum for redressal and prayed to direct the Opp.Party to replace the spares with a new one with free of defect or refund the deposited amount of aRs.2,500/- with 18% interest and direct the OP to pay compensation and cost of litigation for mental agony and damages and grant such other relief as the forum deems fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.
On being noticed, the Opp.Party appeared through advocate Sri S.K.Sahu and files written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.
It is submitted by the Opposite Party that the complainant discussed about the old defects of his bike with the mechanic of the Opp.Party and the mechanic has advised him to purchase the spare parts from the other shop and fitted the spare with the bike of the complainant and the complainant used the vehicle for about one and half month without any problem and when the part got damaged by running of the motor cycle the complainant came to the shop of the Opp.Party and asked to refund the money of the spare parts. The Opp.Party has never adopted unfair trade practice and also the Opp.Party has never sold any spare parts to the complainant at any point of time. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.
F I N D I N G
It is admitted fact that the complainant has repaired his bike with the garage of the Opp.Party and after repair also the same defects exists and the repair was not fruitful. On the other hand the Opp.Party contended that as per discussion with the complainant the Opp.Party advised the complainant to purchase the spare parts from the other shop and fitted the spare with the bike of the complainant and the complainant used the vehicle at about one and half month without any problem and when the part got damaged by running of the motor cycle the complainant came to the shop of the Opp.Party and asked to refund the money of the spare parts.
On perusal of documents it reveals that the Opp.Party i.e. Mahavir Automobiles has issued a bill of Rs.2500/- towards the purchase of spare parts and fixing charges which shows the Opp.Party has supplied the spare parts and the complainant has not purchased from any other shop. When a vehicle found defective in spite of change of new spare parts the vehicle could hardly run for a one and half months from which it can clearly be presumed that the vehicle has not been repaired properly or the spare parts supplied by the Opp.Party is not a genuine part or had manufacturing defect. The complainant must have suffered mental agony in plying the vehicle as the defects in the bike was as usual occurred after changing the spare parts and the complainant sustained loss for the defective spare parts sold by the Opp.Party to the complainant. The complainant has purchased the spare parts for his comfort use of his bike and when the defects in the bike could not be rectified the complainant must have faced problem and sustained mental agony and harassment. From the above submission of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the Opp.Party is found deficiency in their service in supplying defective spare parts to the complainant.
The work ‘ defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or ( under any contract, express or implied, or ) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods and the term ‘ deficiency in service ‘ as per Section 2(1)(g) means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in forced or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
Further, it is clear that the vehicle has been repaired by the Opposite Party and after repair also the alleged defect noticed immediately after one month of its repair which the complainant reported to the Opp.Party but the Opp.Party but the Opp.Party failed to rectify the defects. We perused the documents filed by the complainant. Since the vehicle found defective immediately after its repair and the complainant informed the Ops regarding the defect but the Ops failed to remove the defect . At this stage we hold that if the vehicle require repair within a reasonable gap of its repair, then it can be presumed that the spare parts changed in it is a defective one and if the defective spare parts is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to repair the bike afresh by changing new spare parts and also the complainant is entitled and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss. In the instant case as it appears that the vehicle in question which was repaired by the Opp.Party had developed defects and the Opp.Party was unable to restore its normal functioning in spite of repair. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and repaired the vehicle with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the same .In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the vehicle and deprived of using the same and the defects were not removed by the Opp.Party.
.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party has not rendered their service properly to the complainant and as such the complaint sustained loss for which the Opposite Party is liable to refund the cost of the spare parts and also liable to pay compensation for harassment and litigation charges. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER
The Opposite Party is directed to refund the price of the spare parts i.e. Rs.2100/- as admitted by the complainant he has received back repairing charges of Rs.400/- from the Opposite Party and also liable to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the entire awarded amount.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 23rd day of March,2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.
Member Member ` President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
- Copy of estimate supplied by the OP
- Copy of letter dt. 15.02.17issued to the OP by the complainant
- Copy of letter dt.16.02.2017 of complainant to the Opp.Party
By the Opp.Party: Nil
President
