DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. Case No. 484/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
21.12.2018 31.12.2018 29.04.2022
Complainant/s:- | Sri Arka Roy, S/o. Rakesh Chandra Roy, 51/46/97, Bizpur Workshop Road, P.O. Halisahar, P.S. Bizpur, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Pin-743134. = Vs = |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1.Sri Jogesh Kumar Shaw, Proprietor of Jay Mata Di Auto, 83, K.G.R Path, P. O. Kanchrapara, P.S. Bizpur, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Pin- 743134. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Bajaj Auto Ltd, At Mumbai Pune Highway Main Road, Near Ganpati Mandir, Akurdi, Pune, Maharastra, P.S. Chowkey Akurdi, Pin-411035. |
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant stated that on 13.09.2017 the complainant purchased a motor cycle Bajaj Avenger from the O.P. No.1 at a price of Rs. 94,000/-. The O.P. No.1 also delivered the said motor cycle which is manufactured by Pro. O.P. No.2. The complainant after a few days of the purchase of motor cycle several times requested the O.P. No.1 to deliver the registration certificate regarding the motor cycle but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed with intention to harass the complainant. Without any registration and number plate of the concerned authority the complainant could not run the said motor cycle which was damaged and was not in a position to ply on road. The complainant several times requested the O.P. No.1 to replace all damaged parts of the said motor cycle but O.P. No.1 refused to do so in spite of legal notice dated 29.09.2018 by his Ld. Advocate Mr. Bikash Mondal. Hence the complainant filed this case for a direction to the O.P. No.1 to pay the complainant Rs. 94,000/- with interest and also compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and cost of Rs. 30,000/-.
The O.Ps did not appear to contest the case even after service of notice and the case was, therefore, heard exparte.
The complainant has filed written notes of argument and the Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the O.P.No.1 failed to deliver the registration certificate after the purchase of the motor cycle in spite of repeated request of the O.P. No.1 and therefore the motor cycle remained idle and several parts of the motor cycle were damaged as a result of which the complainant could not run the motor cycle on road. He further submitted that only after receiving the summons from this Forum in the month of May, 2019 the O.P.No.1 handed over the registration certificate to the complainant but did not replace the damaged parts of the said motor cycle so that it can ply on the road. He, therefore, prayed for necessary reliefs as per prayer of the complaint.
Considering the facts and circumstances as in complaint and the evidence of the complainant and the submissions we find that the O.P. No.1 did not deliver the registration certificate in time after the purchase of the motor cycle of the complainant on 13.09.2017. But the O.P. No.1 only delivered the registration certificate in May, 2019 as admitted by the complainant in his written submission and therefore there was delay of more than one and half years.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. Case No. 484/2018
Decisions with Reasons:_
As a result of this the complainant could not run the vehicle on road since he had no registration certificate. Thus, several parts of the motor cycle of the complainant were damaged as contended by the complainant. But the O.P. No.1 did not take any step for repair /replace of all the damaged parts of the said motor cycle. It is evident from the copy of the Advocate’s letter of the complainant dated 29.09.2018 the complainant through his Ld.
Advocate requested for delivering the registration certificate and also replace all the damaged parts of the said vehicle so that it can ply on road. But the O.P. No.1 did not take any step as contended by the complainant. There is no counter evidence by the O.P. No.1 and therefore, there is nothing to dis-believe the contention of the complainant that the vehicle was damaged and the O.P. No.1 failed to replace the damaged parts in spite of repeated requests to that effect. It is admitted position that the complainant received the registration certificate in May, 2019. Therefore, We find that the O.P. No.1 as an obligation to repair / replace all the damaged parts of the motor cycle to make it fully movable on road through an authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2. Therefore, the case is allowed.
Hence,
It is Ordered:-
that the case be and the same is allowed exparte against the opposite parties.
The O.P. No.1 is directed to repair / replace all the damaged parts of the motor cycle in dispute of the complainant through an authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2 within two months from this date, failing which the complainant is at liberty to replace/ to repair all the damaged parts of the motor cycle through an authorized service centre of O.P. No.2 and reimburse the entire cost from O.P.No.1 by executing the decree as per law.
O.P. No.1 is also to pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost within two months from this date, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the decree as per law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
Member President
