Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Dharamvir Singh Son Of Darshan Singh, ... vs Sangrur Autos Pvt. Limited Dhuri Road, ... on 14 August, 2012

    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
            DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

                    First Appeal No. 1046 of 2008
                                Date of institution : 19.09.2008
                                Date of decision : 14.08.2012

    Dharamvir Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village
    Sangala, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur

                                     .....Appellant/complainant.

                           Versus

      1. Sangrur Autos Pvt. Limited Dhuri Road, Malerkotla,
         District Sangrur through its authorized signatory.
      2. Bajaj Auto Limited, SCO 84-85, 2nd floor, Sector 8-C,
         Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Area Manager.

                                           .....Respondent/O.Ps

                           First Appeal against the order dated
                           27.08.2008 passed by the District
                           Consumer      Disputes     Redressal
                           Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-

    Sardar. Jagroop Singh Mahal,
              Presiding Judicial Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Peerdan Kabir, Advocate for Sh. G.S. Nahel, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) First Appeal No.1046 of 2008 2 against the order dated 11.6.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed.

2. According to Dharamvir Singh, complainant he purchased a Bajaj motor cycle from O.P/Respondent No. 1 vide bill dated 12.3.2008 for a sum of Rs. 47550/-. The motor cycle carried a warranty of two years or 30,000 kms whichever is earlier. On 20.4.2008, the engine of the motor cycle stopped working and on the next day he took the same to O.P/respondent No. 1 who told him that the engine of the vehicle is ceased and lot of expenses would be required to make it in working condition. The complainant requested the O.P to install a new engine but O.P. No. 1 flatly refused to accommodate him. They asked the complainant to pay repair charges and charges for spare parts. The complainant approached the O.Ps many times and requested for replacing the motor cycle or in the alternative to install a new engine but they did not agree. He, therefore, filed the present complaint for the said relief or in the alternative for refund of the price of the motor cycle alongwith interest and also demanded Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental tension, pain First Appeal No.1046 of 2008 3 and agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.

3. The stand of the O.Ps is that the motor cycle was sold to the complainant on 21.3.2008 for Rs. 47,550/-, that he came for the first service on 11.4.2008 but did not allege any defect in the vehicle during first service. Till then the motor cycle had covered 1523 K.M. without any complaint. It was denied if the complainant complained about the ceasing of the engine or they demanded any charge. According to them they are ready to do their best for the motor cycle purchased from them and there was no deficiency in service on their part. The other allegations were denied.

4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.

5. Learned District forum after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.8.2008. The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. The complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that no expert evidence has been First Appeal No.1046 of 2008 4 produced to prove if the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any manufacturing defect in the vehicle regarding which there is only an affidavit of the complainant but he also was unable to specify as to what the manufacturing defect was in the vehicle. If there was any manufacturing defect in the engine, the same can very well be repaired but there is no evidence to suggest if the complainant ever reported that there was a defect even in the engine. The complainant had gone to the O.P No. 1 on 11.4.2008 for the first free service but he did not raise any concern about any defect in the vehicle. The contention of the O.Ps is that they had been ready to remove the defect if there is any. Since there was no defect pointed out either to the O.Ps or before the learned District Forum, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps can be proved. In the absence of the proof of manufacturing defect, no order can be passed to replace the vehicle or any of its parts. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint and the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

8. Parties are left to bear t heir own costs.

9. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

                                  (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)
                            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER



August 14, 2012.                    (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)
Rupinder                                MEMBER