Haryana

Sonipat

CC/310/2015

Naresh Kumar S/o Kanwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Triumph Auto Sales Pvt. LTd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Guliya

15 Feb 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.     

 

                             Complaint No.310 of 2015

                             Instituted on:28.08.2015                                           Date of order:01.03.2016

 

Naresh Kumar son of Kanwar Singh, r/o VPO Kumashpur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

..Complainant

 

                          Versus

 

1.Triumph Auto Sale Pvt. Ltd. authorized dealer of Honda Motor Cycles and Scooters, Opp. Civil Hospital, Delhi road, Sonepat through its Director.

2.Honda Motor Cycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., Plot no.1, Sector 3, IMT, Manesare, Gurgaon through its Director.

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF        

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:    Sh. Vikas Gulia Advocate for complainant.

              Sh. PK Bhagat, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased a motorcycle Honda Dream Yuga from respondent no.1 vide invoice dated 1.7.2015 for Rs.54200/-.  On the same day of its purchase, the said vehicle started creating problem in starting and running. The complainant went to respondent no.1, where his staff told that there was some problem in the carborator and after some repair, the vehicle was returned, but it again started the same problem on 11.7.2015. On 13.7.2015, the vehicle was again taken to respondent no.1, where it was told that there was some problem in clutch plates and the respondent no.1 demanded charges for replacement of clutch plates and other related parts.  The vehicle is well within warranty and so, the respondent no.1 has no right to charge any amount for replacement of any part from the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and they have filed their joint written statement submitting therein that there was no defect in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the respondents.  The vehicle of the complainant had run in heavy rain and due to this, water clutch plates were burnt which were not covered under the warranty as it has happened due to mishandling of the vehicle by the complainant.  The vehicle of the complainant is lying at the workshop of the respondent no.1.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the ld. Counsel for the  parties and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle was within warranty period, but despite this, the respondents have demanded charges for replacement of clutch plates and other related parts and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that there was no defect in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the respondents.  The vehicle of the complainant had run in heavy rain and due to this, water clutch plates were burnt which were not covered under the warranty as it has happened due to mishandling of the vehicle by the complainant.  The vehicle of the complainant is lying at the workshop of the respondent no.1.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          After hearing both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to produce any job card etc. in support of his case.  During the course of arguments, he has placed on record the document JN-1 wherein estimated cost of Rs.4096/- is mentioned.

          However, from the material available on the case file, it is gathered that the vehicle of the complainant was within warranty period when he has approached the respondents for the defects in the clutch plates.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the respondents are directed to replace the clutch plates of the motor cycle of the complainant with new one.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to replace the defective clutch plates of the motor cycle of the complainant with new one free of costs and to deliver the motor cycle to the complainant in running condition.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 01.03.2016