Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.01.2017
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to exchange the damaged parts within the period of 30 days.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
It has been asserted by the complainant that he purchased the motorcycle being T.V.S. Suzuki on 17.01.2008 and after few months he observed that the original colour of motorcycle began to fade away. The matter was informed to dealer i.e. opposite party no. 2 and he assured that the grievance of the complainant will be redressed very soon. After few days of the purchase the said motorcycle developed some defect and local dealer was informed but without result.
It has been asserted by the complainant that due to negligence of opposite party he has suffered mental agony and harassment.
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. It has been further asserted that for redressal of grievance of the complainant, the complainant was required to file guarantee card issued by opposite party no. 1. Apart from it the complainant has not asserted as to what type of defect was developed in the said motorcycle after few period of purchase.
It has been further asserted that the complainant has mishandled the said motorcycle and it has been used by non – experienced driver.
No any written statement has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 despite allowing several opportunities but on behalf of opposite party no. 1 an objection petition has been filed repeating the same fact as stated by opposite party no. 2 in its written statement.
It has been further asserted that the said motorcycle is fit and no any part has been damaged and it has been also stated that motor part of the said motorcycle are available everywhere in India and the same can be exchanged.
It is surprising that on behalf of complainant a written statement has been filed in which certain facts have been stated. In the aforesaid petition the details of the opposite party no. 1 has been mentioned and in Para – 4 it has been asserted that the engineer of the company has examined the running condition of said motorcycle and made a remark “ that the motorcycle should be deposited to workshop of opposite party no. 2.”
-
We have examined the record of the care carefully.
From bare perusal of complaint petition it is not clear that what type of colour began to fade after the purchase. It has also not been stated that what type of technical defect developed after few months of purchase of said motorcycle. No any documents/ evidence appears to have been filed on behalf of complainant as to enable us to know about the nature of the defects or nature of the fading away of colour of said motorcycle since few period of purchase.
We are unable to give our findings with regard to aforementioned vague facts asserted by the complainant in absence of any cogent evidence.
For the discussion made above we have no option but to find and hold that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
