State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs Manager, Espee Enterprises India And ... on 30 September, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 / 2013
Sh. Ashok Kumar Agarwal S/o late Sh. Ram Krishan Agarwal
R/o Daksh Marg, Kankhal
District Haridwar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Manager, Espee Enterprises India
Arya Nagar, Jwalapur
Haridwar
2. Vyas Motors through its Manager
Espee Enterprises India
Arya Nagar, Jwalapur
Haridwar
3. Bajaj Auto Limited
Akurdi, Pune - 411 035
......Respondents / Opposite Parties
Appellant present in person
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Dated: 30/09/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 94 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the respondent No. 1 - opposite party No. 1 to replace the tube in question with a new one and in failure to pay the cost of the tube to the appellant - complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 250/-2
to the appellant - complainant. Feeling dissatisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle Bajaj Platina 100 Black from the opposite party No. 1 - Espee Enterprises India, Arya Nagar, Jwalapur, Haridwar on 01.02.2013 for sum of Rs. 39,802/-. The said motorcycle was manufactured by the opposite party No. 3 - Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune. It was alleged that after 15 days' of the purchase of the motorcycle, the joint of tube of rear tyre of the vehicle got opened, which was a manufacturing defect. The complainant lodged the complaint with the opposite party No. 1, but to no avail. It was also alleged that on 11.03.2013, at the time of 1st free service of the vehicle, the opposite party No. 1 had charged the amount towards chain lubrication and service charges, which could not have been charged from the complainant as per owner's manual. The complainant has further alleged that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have installed sub-standard accessories in the vehicle. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite party No. 1 and 3 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that they are ready to replace the tube in question with a new one and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party No. 2 did not file any written statement before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 04.06.2013 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party No. 2.
34. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 06.08.2013 in the above manner. However, feeling dissatisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed the instant appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation / relief awarded by the District Forum per impugned order.
5. We have heard the appellant - complainant in person and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and have also perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.
6. At the outset, we may state here that the opposite party No. 1, against whom, the District Forum has passed the impugned order, has not preferred any appeal against the same and the opposite party No. 1 vide application dated 02.09.2013 (Paper No. 42) has complied the impugned order passed by the District Forum and has submitted the new tube of the vehicle before the District Forum and has also deposited sum of Rs. 250/- awarded by the District Forum vide demand draft No. 561382 dated 22.08.2013 for Rs. 250/- issued by Punjab National Bank, B.T. Ganj, Roorkee (Haridwar).
7. So far as the enhancement of compensation sought by the complainant is concerned, in the consumer complaint dated 15.03.2013 (Paper Nos. 8 to 9), the complainant has sought the relief that the opposite parties be directed to replace the tube in question with a new one; that the excess amount charged from the complainant during the 1st free service of the vehicle, be refunded to him and that the opposite parties be further directed to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
48. The first relief sought by the complainant with regard to the replacement of the tube in question with a new one, has been awarded by the District Forum. So far as the other reliefs sought by the complainant are concerned, the District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 250/-. After careful perusal of the record and the entire facts of the case, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the District Forum and we are of the considered view that the District Forum has adequately compensated the complainant and has awarded adequate and proper relief to the complainant and no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K