State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Shashi Pal. vs Manager, M.H. Honda. & Anr. on 27 July, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 194/2016
Date of Presentation: 09.06.2016
Date of Decision: 27.07.2016.
...............................................................................
Shashi Pal, Son of Shri Jagan Nath,
Resident of Village Bharolian Kalan,
Post Office Behdala, Tehsil & District Una, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Manager,
M.H. Honda, near AMC Hospital,
Amb Road, Una,
Tehsil and District Una, H.P.
2. Manager, M.H. Honda,
Railway Road Nangal,
Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar, Punjab.
...Respondents
...................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
................................................ ......................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.04.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, seeking direction to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Shashi Pal Versus Manager, M.H. Honda & Anr.(F.A. No.194/ 2016) them to pay `15,000/-, as compensation for loss of business, `20,000/-, on account of damages for deficient service and `13,000/-, as litigation cost, has been dismissed, with the finding that his allegation regarding manufacturing defect, in the scooter, purchased by him from respondent No.1, does not stand proved.
2. Appellant alleged that he purchased a Honda Activa Scooter from respondent No.1, on 26.04.2012, and that scooter started giving problem on the very next date of its purchase, because its front wheel got jammed and stuck. Matter was reported to respondent No.1, who advised to get the vehicle checked at authorized workshop of the manufacture at Nangal. So, the appellant went to respondent No.2, the owner of authorized workshop of manufacturer. There also, defect could not be removed, satisfactorily. The defect persisted until the filing of complaint. On these allegations, appellant claimed compensation and litigation expenses, as aforesaid.
2 Shashi Pal Versus Manager, M.H. Honda & Anr.(F.A. No.194/ 2016)
3. Complaint was contested by the respondents and it was denied that there was any defect, much less a manufacturing defect in the scooter. It was stated that once the appellant had complained about some noise in the front wheel of scooter and that complaint was attended and defect removed to the satisfaction of the appellant. In support of the plea, respondents placed reliance upon Annexure R4, a job card, dated 02.02.2013.
4. Learned District Forum has believed the respondents' version and dismissed the complaint.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
6. Appellant did not place any documentary evidence in support of his contention that front wheel of the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect and the defect had not been removed, until the filing of complaint. Respondents submitted five job cards, Annexures R2, R3, R4, R6 & R8. Annexure R2 pertains to free 3 Shashi Pal Versus Manager, M.H. Honda & Anr.(F.A. No.194/ 2016) service, carried out on 18.06.2012. By that date, scooter had covered 412 kilometers. Next job card is Annexure R3. The same is dated 11.01.2013. As per this job card, choke & indicator were checked and repaired to the satisfaction of the appellant. Third job card is Annexure R4. It is dated 02.02.2013. By that date, the vehicle had covered a distance of 1762 kilometers. According to this job card, there was front tyre noise, while using the brake. The defect was removed to the satisfaction of appellant, as per certification, duly signed by him. Next job card is Annexure R6, dated 04.04.2013. As per this job card, front wheel was to be checked. It was checked on the same date and the respondent, in his own hand wrote his satisfaction. Next job card is Annexure R8, dated 04.07.2015. By then the vehicle had covered 6162 kilometers. There is no reference to any problem with the front wheel, as per this job card. Some minor problem was there, which was 4 Shashi Pal Versus Manager, M.H. Honda & Anr.(F.A. No.194/ 2016) rectified to the satisfaction of the appellant, as is made out from certification, duly signed by him.
7. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
8. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member July 27, 2016.
GAURAV) 5