State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sarswati Motors vs Satya Prakash Srivastava on 15 November, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1857/2015 ( Date of Filing : 11 Sep 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 07/07/2015 in Case No. C/447/2012 of District Allahabad) 1. M/S Sarswati Motors Allahabad ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Satya Prakash Srivastava Allahabad ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 15 Nov 2022 Final Order / Judgement ORAL State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Appeal No. 1857 of 2015 1- M/s Saraswati Motors, 44 Myor Road, Rajapur, Allahabad-211001 through Proprietor. 2- M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd., 34, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Basant Vihar, New Delhi- 110057 ....Appellants. Versus Satya Prakash Srivastava s/o Sri Devideen Srivastava, R/o 8M/6S/1, Nai Basti, Harwara, City and District, Allahabad. ...Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member. Sri R.K. Gupta, Advocate for appellants. None for respondent. Date 15.11.2022 JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2015 passed in complaint case no.447 of 2012, Satya Prakash Srivastava vs. M/s Saraswati Motors & anr., whereby the ld. District Forum, Allahabad by allowing the complaint, directed the appellants/ opposite parties to remove the bubbling of motorcycle without any cost. The ld. District Forum further directed that if it is not possible to remove the bubbling of the motorcycle then replace with another motorcycle of same value, quality and cost.
This judgment is challenged on the ground that the ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order without appreciation of the evidence available on record. The first service was conducted on 18.3.2012 after the completion of 697 Kms riding and the complainant never made any complaint regarding bubbling before the date of service. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is not sustainable.
(2)We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant only. None appeared for the respondent.
Ld. counsel for the appellants argued that there was no complaint regarding bubbling before the date of first service. To make the complaint regarding the defect of the vehicle the appropriate date is first date of service. This argument is not appreciable that there was no complaint regarding bubbling before 18.3.2012.
The ld. District Forum has given the finding on the point of complaint before the date of service also. The complainant proved this fact that he made complaints twice through affidavit. Therefore, to remove the defect of the motorcycle regarding bubbling is the duty of the appellant but since there is no evidence on record regarding manufacturing defect in the motorcycle, hence, the order for replacement of motorcycle with new one is not proper and this part of the judgment and order deserved to be set aside.
ORDER Appeal is allowed partially. The judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is modified to the extent that opposite party/appellant need not to replace the motorcycle with new one but the appellant/opposite party is bound to remove the defect without any cost as per the satisfaction of the complainant. Rest part of the judgment is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record. (Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar) Member Presiding Member Jafr, PA I Court 2 [HON'BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER