Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/461

BHASARAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 461/2015

Sh. Bashrat Ali,

S/o Mohd . Khalid ,  

R/o  WZ-108 B,

Basai Darapur, Ramesh Nagar,

New Delhi.                                                             …….. Complainant   

 

VERSUS

1. M/s Honda  Motorcycle & Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Sector-3,   I.M.T Manager,                                                           District Gurgaon,    Haryana-122050
2. M/s Capital Scooters Pvt. Ltd (Bhasin Honda)  28, Raja Garden,     (Opposite Metro Pillar No. 376),  New Delhi-110015                                                                              

Also  at :-  56-B, Rama  Road ,  Moti Nagar,  New Delhi-110015              ……..                        Opposite Parties

 

  

 

O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant  is the registered owner of Motor Cycle bearing No. DL-10-SG-9407, Model CB Trigger(Std.)  being manufactured by OP-1 and having being purchased from OP-2 by  virtue  of retail invoice dated 17.01.2015 for sum of Rs.  75,839/- i.e. averred in  the complaint  that since purchase of aforesaid Motorcycle , it was not functioning properly.  There was lot of missing    and noise  while plying the motorcycle  there was pick-up and mileage problem,  as  a result  whereof the bike was taken to the work shop of OP-2  for about 12 times in short span of  two months  but the defects  were  not removed.   OP -2 clearly told  the complainant that said defects could not be rectified  as there was  manufacturing defect in the bike. Ultimately the complainant sent legal notice on 25.03.2015  calling upon OP to replace the motorcycle or refund price whereupon OP  threatened the complainant  vide letter dated 03.04.2015 and  15.06.2015 to collect the motorcycle failing which they would charge Rs. 100/- per day for keeping the motorcycle in their workshop hence the present complaint with the prayer to get the vehicle   replaced or money refunded.

2.     OPs filed written submission  that the complaint filed by complainant  has no cause of cause  and should be dismissed .  The complainant has failed to pin point  any manufacturing  defect in the vehicle  nor did he file  the report of any expert.  The burden to prove the manufacturing defect lies on the complainant.  The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the           OP-2 and all the defects were set right  and complainant was requested to pick  the bike  but he flatly refused to  turn up. 

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint.  On the other hand Sh. Ravinder  Chauhan  Works Manager,M/s Capital Scooter Pvt. Ltd. has filed affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement with documents Ex. RW1/1 to RW1/13   Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.

4.      We have gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed by both the parties and have also heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.

5.      The main controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defect or it needs to be replaced or price   refunded to complainant.  It is now  a well settled law that a duty is cast upon the complainant to  establish the manufacturing defect in the  automobile.  Obviously the complainant  has not placed on record any  cogent  evidence  to substantiate  that the motor bike  suffered  from any manufacturing defect.  However it is quite clear that within two months of purchase of vehicle  it had to be taken  to the workshop of OP-2 on numerous occasions. Though complainant  had failed to establish manufacturing  defect but at the same time it cannot be said that  bike was not suffering from any defect.  A person who purchases new vehicle /bike and fails to enjoy the comfort of  the ride thereof  rather such vehicle is taken to the workshop  time and again soon after it purchase adds to the woes of the consumer .  Admittedly the vehicle  was purchased in 2015 and is stated  to be in possession of OP-2 since April 2015.  It was not taken over by the complainant despite repeated request of OP-2 , therefore, it would not be proper to order for refund or replacement of vehicle.  Nevertheless the complainant has suffered a lots therefore he needs to be fairly compensated .

6.      Keeping  in view  the facts and circumstances of the case  we are of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if we  award a sum of                       Rs. 50,000/- in favour of complainant for inconvenience, harassment and litigation expenses.  We also direct  complainant to take delivery of the vehicle from OP within one month and get the same repaired of it own. The complaint is  disposed of accordingly .                                                                                                                                                     

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

  Announced this___26___ day of ___September ______ 2018.

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                        (PUNEET LAMBA)        

                                                                    MEMBER                                                                        

PRESIDENT