State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Satyam Sreedharan vs M/S Eicher Ltd & Ors on 23 June, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/87 a/w MA/11/53(DELAY)
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 21/04/2010 in Case No. 219/2004 of District
Mumbai(Suburban))
1. MR SATYAM SREEDHARAN
SHANKAR LOK BLDG G/F FLAT NO 1 YESHAWANT NAGAR
VAKOLA SANTACRUZ EAST MUMBAI
MUMBAI 400 055
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/S EICHER LTD
TIRUVO
HIYUR HIGH ROAD TIRUVOTTIYUR CHENNAI
CHENNAI 600 019
TAMILNADU
2. ROYAL ENFIELD
TIRUVOTTIYUR
HIGH ROAD
CHENNAI 600 019
3. MR.SUDHIR NAIK @ SUNIL NAIK
MANAGER OF ROYAL ENFIELD
EICHAR LIMITED
6 & 7 IMPERIAL
PLAZA 27 AND 30TH
ROAD JUNCTION
OFF.LINKING ROAD BANDRA (W)
MUMBAI 400 050
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode
PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT: Ms.Sindha Shreedharan-Advocate
for the appellant
ORDER
Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Ms.Sindha Shreedharan-Advocate for the appellant.
It is a case of alleged deficiency in service in respect of repairs of the motor cycle Bullet Electric Disc Magic Black, which met with an accident on 02/04/2004. According to the complainant, the vehicle was handed over for repairs to one Francis Garage, as per instructions of respondent /opponent no.3- Mr.Sudhir Naik, who according to the complainant is a Manager of Royal Enfield at Mumbai.
It is further grievance that at the garage original parts of the vehicle were totally replaced and only skeleton was left. If it is a case of alleged theft of the original parts, in that case no consumer complaint would lie.
Furthermore, it is revealed from the record that opponents deny any such case further denied their liability and specifically brought it to the notice that as per the surveyors report, damaged parts, which were not covered by the warranty and since the damage is caused due to accident were only replaced, and the vehicle was fully repaired. It further appears that shortly after filing of the complaint and perhaps before receipt of the notice of this consumer complaint, it was informed to the complainant to take back the vehicle which was fully repaired. When we made enquiry from the Ld.counsel for the complainant, it appears from her replies that the complainant did not take the delivery and stick up to his case that entire original parts were replaced.
We further made enquiry from the Ld.counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant as to what sort of evidence was led in light of the written version and case made out by the opponent, her reply was that no such evidence is led and the appellant/complainant relies only upon the local investigation report of the Commissioner appointed through the forum. Said report is not in support of the appellant/complainant as observed by the forum and rightly so.
In view of the above referred position, we find enormous delay of 7 months, which is sought to be condoned by separate application, need not be condoned and, particularly, when even the application does not disclose any sufficient reason to condone the delay, which are contained in para 5 to 7 of the application. Misc.application no.MA/11/53 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
Under the circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opponents is made out. It may be pointed out that the repairs were carried out at a garage, supra, and not by the company itself. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that said garage where repairs were carried out has anything to do with the opponents.
Thus, we find appeal devoid of any substance and, holding accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER Misc.application no.MA/11/53 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.
At this stage Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for keeping this order in abeyance. Since original complaint itself stood dismissed per impugned order, the request stands rejected.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 23rd June, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.