Complaint No: 272 of 2019.

      Date of Institution:26.08.2019.

              Date of order:21.08.2023.

Ashwani Thapa Son of Sh.Mohinder Pal, resident of #161/8, Backside Geeta Bhawan, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 143521.

                                                                         .....Complainant.

VERSUS

Duggal Automobiles, Batala Road, Improvement Trust Colony, Scheme No.1, Gurdaspur. 143521.

                                                                         ....Opposite party.

                Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rohit Gupta, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party: Sh.Bharat Aggarwal, Advocate.

    Sh.Manohar Lal work Manager of the opposite party in

    person.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh

                Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Ashwani Thapa, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the Duggal Automobiles (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Motorcycle Model (Super Splendor) from opposite party on dated 02.07.2019 and he also paid the full amount of Rs.58,540/- for above said bike to the opposite party and at the time of selling the bike, opposite party told him that the above said bike is with Tubeless Tyres. On dated 14.07.2019, after the period of 12days from the purchase of bike, Bike's back tyre got punctured. It is alleged that he went to Mechanic and asked him to repair the tyre, but at the time of repairing he came to know that the bike's tyre are not tubeless as promised by the opposite party. It is further alleged that on dated 16.07.2019 he discussed the matter with opposite party and opposite party also assured him to change both the tyres. However, opposite party wrongfully removed the tubes of the tyres and convert the tyres to tubeless tyres and he on dated 18.07.2019 made online complaint against opposite party to Hero Motors at its E-mail ID and stated the entire incidence. It is further alleged that next day after the complaint, opposite party called him and promised to change the tyres. On the complaint, opposite party also changed both the tyres and assured him that the tyres have been changed now to tubeless tyres. It is further alleged that he was in doubt, so he again verified the same with local mechanic and shocked to know that the back tyre of the bike is tubeless but the front tyre was again the same (with tube). It is further alleged that thereafter, he approached the opposite party so many times and requested them to change the front tyre of the bike, but earlier they delayed the matter with one pretext or the other and now finally refused to admit the claim of complainant. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party he has suffered financial loss and also suffered mental and physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

          On this backdrop of facts, he has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed thatthe opposite party be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to him along with interest and the opposite party may also be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges and Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and mental pain, agony to him in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and filed their written reply, stating therein that the there is no tubeless tyres in the models of 2018. It is specifically denied that it was told to the complainant that the said bike was having tubeless tyres. It is further specifically denied that on 16.07.2019, the opposite party assured to change the tyres. It is pleaded that at the time of purchase, it was made clear to the complainant that on 04.07.2019 that the bike is of 2018 model and it is without tubeless tyres. The complainant was given special discount in invoice in this regard of Rs.13,27.80p. It is further pleaded that the company has not delivered any bike with tubeless tyres with 2018 models. The complainant was never assured to convert the tyres with tubeless. The opposite party never removed to the tubes as alleged. The bike of the complainant was serviced on 24.07.2019 and the complainant received the same after service with issuing satisfaction certificate.

          On merits, the opposite party denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashwani Thapa, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 along with other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by both the parties.

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased one Super Splendor motorcycle from opposite party vide tax invoice Ex.OP-1 with tubeless tyres as disclosed by opposite party. On 14.07.2019 complainant came to know that tyres attached with the motorcycle were not tubeless and thereafter complainant requested the opposite party to replace the normal tyres with tubeless tyres but opposite party refused to change the same which amounts to deficiency in service.

9.       On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that opposite party never assured and proclaimed that the tyres of the motorcycle of the complainant were tubeless as the same is of 2018 model and is without tubeless tyres and complainant was given special discount of Rs.1327.80p. on this account, as such there is no deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Even during the course of arguments counsel for the opposite party has placed on record online broucher as per which TUBE type tyre are shown to be recommended for Super Splendor Feb. 2019 model. However, it has not been proved on record that said online broucher was ever shown to the complainant. As such opposite party cannot take any benefit.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased one motorcycle from opposite party vide tax invoice Ex.OP-1 in which under the column remarks Special Model Discount on 2018 is mentioned. However, in Ex.OP-1 it is not mentioned that discount has been given on account of tyres with tubes. Since the opposite party promised to provide tubeless tyres to the complainant. It is also mentioned so in the specifications as mentioned in Ex.C-5. As such the act of the opposite party of having handed over the motorcycle fitted with tyres with tubes amounts to deficiency in service. During the course of arguments counsel for the complainant has stated that original R.C. of the motorcycle is also lying with the opposite party and on directions of this Commission original R.C. of the motorcycle was handed over by the opposite party to the complainant vide separate statement dated 04.08.2023 and handed over original R.C. to the complainant and this proves the high handedness of the opposite party that the opposite party had withheld the R.C. of the motorcycle without any reasonable cause, although no relief qua the R.C. has been claimed in the complaint. 

11.     From the evidence on record and facts it is proved that opposite party handed over the motorcycle fitted with tryes with tubes by falsely claiming it to be tubeless tyres which amounts to business malpractice and deficiency in service. Since the motorcycle is of 2018 model and is also more than three years old and the tyres already fitted have been used extensively. As such replacement of tyres shall be of no use at this stge. As such opposite party is directed to pay consolidated lump sum compensation of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, business malpractice, mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

12.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                        President 

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 21, 2023                                               Member

*YP*