Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):

This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun in Consumer Complaint No. 216/2008, dismissing his complaint on the ground that he failed to submit the evidences.

2. The complainant Shri Sanjay Rastogi, a resident of Kotdwar (District Pauri Garhwal) and one of the partners of M/s Deepak Traders, Kotdwar, had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun on 01.12.2008. The facts of the consumer complaint in brief are that the complainant purchased a vehicle (three wheeler) on 26.07.2006 from M/s Arsh Enterprises, Dehradun - opposite party no. 1. The vehicle was manufactured by M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd., Pune - opposite party no. 2 as model "APE CARGO D 810 Delivery Van" 1.3 Tonner. The complainant has alleged that since the very first day of its purchase, when he was taking the vehicle from Dehradun to Kotdwar, it started giving problem. He also found that the vehicle was not fit for plying in hilly roads, though the brochure of the vehicle ensure that the vehicle is powered by its superior engine, effortlessly climbs gradients and hilly roads with higher operating loads even at low speeds. As a result, he could not use the vehicle for the delivery of goods in hilly region of District Pauri Garhwal. Even in the plains, he could not use the vehicle sufficiently because he had to take the vehicle most frequently to the service centre for repair. His woes got further aggravated as the service centre in Kotdwar was closed after a few days of the vehicle's purchase and he had to bring the vehicle every time to Dehradun for service and repair. Though the authorised dealer - opposite party no. 1 claims that its mechanic visited Kotdwar every month, but according to the complainant, the mechanic of the authorised dealer never visited Kotdwar regularly. The result was that the vehicle remained idle for most of the time. By the date the consumer complaint was filed, i.e., upto 26.11.2008, the vehicle could run only 7000 kilometers. The complainant has also stated that the manufacturer - opposite party no. 2 has provided him one year's warranty or trouble free run of 30,000 kilometers, whichever is less. Thus, alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite parties, the aforesaid consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, seeking a relief of Rs. 3,51,419/- and compensation @ Rs. 200/- per day for harassment, inconvenience, frustration, mental agony etc.