DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 677 of 29-10-2014

Decided on 09-02-2015

Sukhpreet Sharma, aged about 24 years, S/o Sh. Nachattar Ram, R/o Street No. 7-A, Hans Nagar, Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sector 3 IMT, Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana), through its M.D.

2. International Honda, Guru Kanshi Marg, Near New Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Branch Incharge/Manager

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. Surinder Mohan, President

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainant : Sh. Vikas Kumar, counsel for complainant.

For the opposite parties : Exparte.

O R D E R

Surinder Mohan, President

1. Brief facts are that complainant purchased one Hero Honda Motor Cycle Model CB Twister from OP No. 2 on 28-12-2013. OP No. 2 provided two years warranty to the complainant in case of any defect in the said motor cycle. Complainant purchased motor cycle from OP No. 2 after taking loan and is regularly making payment of installments. That there is some defect in the said motor cycle as a result of which Silencer of the motor cycle is making huge and unnatural noise while the motor cycle is plied by the complainant. Complainant also reported the matter to OP No. 2 at the time of service of the motor cycle but OP No. 2 did not pay any heed to his request rather used to provide formal service to the motor cycle. However, defect of huge noise in the Silencer has not been removed so far. Complainant lodged complaints with OPs through e-mails dated 15-10-2014 and 18-10-2014 but complainant did not receive any response from them. Silencer of motor cycle is making huge noise from the date of its purchase. OPs are putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext in order to cover the guarantee/warranty period which is going to expire on 27-12-2015 and are unnecessarily harassing the complainant instead of replacing the Silencer despite his repeated requests. Due to above said act of OPs, the complainant suffered huge mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and as such, he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and replacement of Silencer of motor cycle in question. The complaint is supported by short affidavit of complainant.

2. Notice of complaint was given to OPs. OP No. 2 was served personally on 18-11-2014, but none appeared and was proceeded against exparte. OP No. 2 even not filed written version within statutory period. Notice to OP No. 1 was sent through registered cover but OP No. 1 not appeared nor registered cover was received back served or un-served. Exparte proceedings were also taken against OP No. 1.

3. In his exparte evidence, complainant tendered documents Ex.

   C-1 Invoice dated 28-12-2013 for Rs. 49,751/-; Ex. C-2 Form No. 21 issued by Global Automobiles; Ex. C-3 Warranty Policy; Ex. C-4 Affidavit of Sukhpreet Singh; Ex. C-5 e-mail dated 15-10-2014 and Ex. C-6 e-mail dated 18-10-2014.

4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone

   through the record very carefully.

5. The complainant has clearly pleaded that he purchased the motor cycle on 28-12-2013 from OP No.2. There is no invoice on the file issued by OP No.2. Invoice Ex. C-1 reveals that motor cycle was purchased by complainant from Global Automobiles, Barnala. Global Automobiles has not been made party in the present complaint. Similarly, complainant has pleaded that he had approached OP No. 2 at the time of service of motor cycle. No copy of 'Service Book' has been placed on file. It is specific case of the complainant that he approached OP No. 2 for service of motor cycle. Even no record of free services depicting defect in the motor cycle has been placed on file. There is absolutely no evidence qua OP No. 2. So far as OP No. 1 is concerned, decidedly OP No. 1 is manufacturer of the motor cycle. E-mails were sent to OP No. 1 but in the e-mails Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-6 correct/complete engine number and frame number have not been mentioned to process the request of complainant by OP No. 1. Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Moreover, the motor cycle was purchased from Barnala and this complaint should have been filed at Barnala. This complaint could be filed at Bathinda incase there was any paid or free service record of the motor cycle in question.

6. Resultantly, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and complaint stands dismissed. However, the complainant will be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances, if any.

7. Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced :

   09-02-2015

   (Surinder Mohan )

   President

    

    

   (Sukhwinder Kaur)

   Member

    

    

   (Jarnail Singh)

   Member