Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/6

KAMAL KISHORE DUTT - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 03.09.2015

First Appeal No. 06/2011

(Arising out of the order dated 09.12.2010 passed in complaint case No. 235/10 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave,Delhi-110092

the matter of:

KAMAL KISHORE DUTT

Son of Sh. Kishan Lal,

R/o R-96, East Vinod Nagar,

Delhi-110091                                                            Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.       M/s T.V.S. Motors

          Through its Manager

          K-23, Lajpat Nagar-II

          New Delhi

 

2.       M/s G.K. Motors Pvt. Ltd.

          Through its Authorized

          Person/Representative

          S-526, School Block

          Shakarpur, Delhi-110092                                            Respondent

 

          CORAM

 

SH N P KAUSHIK                                   -                       Member (Judicial)

SH. S.C. JAIN                                        -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

                Appeal is directed against the orders dated 9/12/2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi-92.  Vide impugned order the appellant was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/-.

          Facts in brief of the complaint are that the Complainant/Appellant purchased a Motorcycle of ‘T.V.S. Flame’ make from OP-1/respondent for an amount of Rs. 52,400/- on 10/8/2008. Grievance of the complainant was that he was not satisfied with the performance of the vehicle.  The vehicle broke down 13-14 times. He had to tow-away the same to the workshop for repairs.  Complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he lodged a complaint dated 23.5.2009 with the OP. OPs in the written statement of the District Forum submitted that the vehicle in question was thoroughly checked and tested by skilled mechanics of OP-2. The vehicle was found free from any defect.  Complainant had been using the vehicle for more than two years and raising false pleas of defect.

          Ld. District Forum dwelt at length on all the 14 visits of vehicle to the workshop. The vehicle had done 23,715 km in a span of 17 months of its purchase.  Ld. District Forum observed that had the vehicle been suffering from a manufacturing defect, it could not have done 23,715km in a span of 17 months. Claim of the complainant for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost was not substantiated.

          A careful perusal of the job cards shows that the complainant had complained of different problems on different occasions.  In the complaint dated 23/5/2009 the complainant had expressed a problem in the odometer. A problem in the battery was also indicated. Admittedly all such parts were replaced. Perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant has not made any allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It was for these reasons that the Ld. District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 5000/- for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant/Appellant. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 9/12/2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum.  Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

          Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

F.D.R. if any deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(S.C.  JAIN)

MEMBER

(m)