Case No. CC/102/2019
COMPLAINANT :1. Dipak Biswas,
S/o. Biswanath Biswas,
Vill. Kat Gara, P.O. Kalinagar,
P.S. Chapra, Dist.Nadia,
Pin. 741166.
V-E-R-S-U-S
OPPOSITE PARTIES / 1.Manager,
G.P. Auto Centre,
Authorise Dealer of Hero Motocorp,
6, No.R.N. Tagore Road, High Street,
Krishnagar, P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia, Pin. 741101.
2.Manager,
Hero Motocorp. Ltd.,
69th K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur,
Highway, Dharuhera-122100, Haryana.
Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Rajdeep Majumdar
For OP/OPs : Satyabrata Ghosh
(2)
Date of filing of the case :30.05.2019
Date of Disposal of the case :21.09.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.21.09.2023
Complainant above named filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to the OP No.1 & 2 to refund of Rs.52,363/-, interest at the rate of 12% per annum over the said amount, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and other reliefs.
He alleged in the petition of complaint that he purchased one Motorcycle from the showroom of OP NO.1 purchase price of the said Motorcycle was fixed Rs.46,137/- excluding Registration and Insurance Policy.
On 19.07.2017 complainant purchased the said Motorcycle after payment of Rs.46,137/-. He also paid Rs.4615/- for Registration and Rs.1611/- for insurance purpose. Warranty of the said Motorcycle was 5years. First servicing of the said Motorcycle was completed in due time. Thereafter, complainant noticed same problem in the said Motorcycle. He requested the OP No.1 to change the defective parts. OP No.1 changed the plug of the said Motorcycle but said problem is still now continuing. Complainant repaired the said Motorcycle on several times from the authorized dealer that is OP NO.1 but the problem is still continuing. Hence, the complainant filed this case.
OP No.1` filed W/V and denied the entire allegations. He further contained that there is no problem in the said Motorcycle.
Moreover, when the complainant came to the service centre of OP No.1 for servicing, they provided the proper service and complainant received the Motorcycle after full satisfaction. There is no latches on the part of the OP NO.1. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
Trial
During trial complainant filed affidavit in chief. OP NO.1 filed questionnaire and complainant gave reply. OP No.1 filed affidavit in chief and date was fixed for filing of questionnaire by the complainant but complainant was absent without any steps. He did not take any steps on that date. He was asked to file show cause by 07.09.2023 as to why necessary order shall not be passed against him. On 07.09.2023 complainant was found absent. He did not file show cause, so complainant lost his opportunity to file questionnaire and accordingly filing of answer by the OP No.1 did not arise.
(3)
Documents
Complainant produced the following documents viz :
- Tax invoice dated 19.07.2017 for the amount of Rs.46,137/-............(One sheet).............(Original)
- Tax document issued by RTO, Nadia amounting to Rs.4615/-..........(Two sheets).........(Original)
- Insurance Policy for the period from 19.07.2018 to 18.07.2019 for Rs.1611/-............(One sheet)..........(Original)
- Copy of complaint lodged by the complainant before the A.D..........(One sheet)...........(Original)
- Copy of complaint dated 29.01.2019 lodged by the complainant before the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice.........(One sheet)..........(Xerox with receiving endorsement)
Brief Notes of Argument
Complainant filed BNA. OP No.1 did not file BNA.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the complainant, W/V filed by the OP NO.1, affidavit in chief filed by the complainant, affidavit in chief filed by the OP No.1, documents filed by the complainant and BNA filed by the complainant. We have carefully considered these documents.
It is the main allegation of the complainant that he purchased one Motor cycle from OP No.1 and ex-showroom price of the said Motor cycle was Rs.46,137/- and complainant paid Rs.4,615/- for Registration and Tax purpose and Rs.1,611/- for insurance purpose. Complainant completed first service from OP No.1. Thereafter, complainant found plug problem. Thereafter, OP NO.1 changed the same but problem was continuing. Complainant repair the said Motor cycle on several times from the authorised dealer that is OP NO.1 but said problem is still now continuing. Complainant on several times requested to OP No.1 to repair the same but OP NO.1 failed to repair the same properly. Hence the complainant filed this case and prayed for refund of the purchase value amounting to Rs.52,363/-.
OP No.1 in his W/V denied the entire allegations. He further contended that he is the authorised dealer of OP No.2. After purchase of the aforesaid Motor cycle complainant came before him for servicing but he did not lodge any complaint regarding particular problem. He took
(4)
the delivery of Motor cycle after his full satisfaction of servicing. As per the report of workshop said Motor cycle is in order there is no problem regarding the said Motor cycle. Complainant came before the servicing centre of OP No.1 and he gave proper service so there is no deficiency of service from the part of OP No.1.
On perusal of documents filed by the complainant, we find that complainant paid Rs.46,137 as cost of Motor cycle, we also find that Registration of the said document has made on 31.07.2017 and same is valid till 30.8.2032.
On perusal of Insurance Policy , we find that said Motor cycle was insured for the period from 19.07.2018 to 18.07.2019.
It is the main allegation of the complainant that aforesaid Motor cycle is not functioning properly . He visited the workshop of OP NO.1. They repaired the same on several occasions but problem is still now continuing.
From the aforesaid allegations, it is clear before us that complainant alleging the manufacturing defect of the said Motor cycle. But complainant did not file any application before this Commission for examination of the aforesaid Motor cycle by a competent authority on the point of manufacturing defect. Without proper examination of the Motor cycle by the competent person, it is not possible for us to say that the said Motor cycle bears manufacturing defect.
On perusal of record, we find that complainant is the consumer and OP No.1 & 2 are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that complainant has not able to established his grievance by sufficient documentary evidence beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, he is not entitled to any relief as per his prayer.
In the result present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
(5)
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP NO.1 and dismissed ex-parte against OP NO.1 but without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
