Delhi

North East

CC/264/2016

PARAS JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA SHANKAR MOTOR - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 264/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Paras Jain S/o Shri Brij Mohan Jain R/o B-54/1,Gali Jain Mandir, Shastri park, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	Mahindra, Shanker Motors, Authorised Dealer, AT E-64, Jyoti Colony, 100 Ft. Road, Shahdra, Delhi-110032   Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, Pune Office D-1 Block Plot No. 18/2,(Part)M.I.D.C Chindhwad, Pune 411019	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

05.10.2016 13.07.2022 12.08.2022

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a Gusto scooty bearing registration no. DL14SF8710 from the Opposite Party No-1 on 10.07.2015.  It is stated by the Complainant that he purchased the scooty from Opposite Party No-1 on instalments. It is submitted by the Complainant that after 02 to 03 months of purchasing the vehicle in question, the vehicle started having some problems like starting issues and vehicle stop working in the middle of the road and several other issues due to which there was always a risk of a road accident.  It is stated by the Complainant that he had visited the Opposite Party No-1’s service centre several times. They repaired the vehicle in question but after 1-2 days of repairing of vehicle, the vehicle again started to show problems.  The Complainant stated that he had visited the Opposite Party No-1 service centre 6 to 7 times but his vehicle was not repaired and he was facing the same problem again and again.  The Complainant stated that the vehicle in question  could not be repaired after several times visits the Opposite Party No-1’s service centre.  Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of OP. The Complainant has prayed for refund of the amount paid by him for purchasing the scooty. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No-1 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No. 1 denied each and every allegations, contentions and statement made by the Complainant. It is stated by the Opposite Party No-1 that the complaint is without any merit and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No-2 contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party No- 2 has denied the allegation made by the Complainant. It is stated that the case is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that the Starter Coil was replaced under the warranty and to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6.  In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 filed affidavit of Shri Rajeev Sharma, Working as Head Customer Care-Authorized Signatory-Mahindra 2 Wheelers Ltd, D1 Block, Plot No.18/2, M.I.D.C., Party No.1 Chinchward, Pune-411019 wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party-2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and have perused the file. We have also perused the written arguments filed by complainant and Opposite Party   No-2. The Opposite Parties did not address arguments. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased scooty from Opposite Party No-1 which was manufactured by Opposite Party No-2. The case of the Complainant is that after the purchased of scooty he used to face many problems in the functioning of the scooty for which he went to the service center of Opposite Party No-1. It is his case that after his 6-7 visits the defects could not be rectified. In order to support his case he has filed his affidavit. The case of the Opposite Party No-1 is that the defects pointed out by the Complainant were always rectified to the satisfaction of the Complainant. However, to support its contentions the Opposite Party No-1 did not file any cogent evidence. Therefore, the allegations made by the Complainant in his complaint have to be believed and accepted.

In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the Opposite Party No-1 shall pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- on account of the defects pointed out by the Complainant in respect of his scooty this amount shall carry an interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the recovery of this amount. An amount of Rs.7,000/- shall be paid by the Opposite Party No-1 to the Complainant on account of harassment and litigation expenses. This amount shall carry an interest @ 6 % pa. from the date of this order.

8. Order announced on 12.08.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President