Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1639/2016

Honda Motorcycle & Scooters Pvt. Ltd. (HMES)Through CEO/MD - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naresh Khandelwal S/O Laxmandas - Opp.Party(s)

Vaibhav Bhargava

17 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1639/2016

 

Honda Motorcycle & Scooters Pvt. Ltd., (HMSI) through CEO/MD Plot No. 1 & 2 Sector 3 IMT Manesar Distt. Gurgaon & ors.

Vs.

Naresh Khandelwal s/o Lakshmandas r/o 2 Ka 17, Kala Kuaan, Alwar.,

 

Date of Order 17.5.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Alwar dated 22.11.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant. The matter has come

2

 

upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 5 days but looking to the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he is ready to repair the vehicle. The only defect in the vehicle was starting problem but the Forum below has ordered for replacement of the scooter which is not justified in the facts of the present case.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the scooter was purchased on 29.8.2014 and the contention of the complainant was that after the delivery the scooter was not starting. He sent the scooter to service centre on 15.10.2014 and 16.11.2014 and to support this contention gate pass issued by the respondent no.1 were also submitted. The contention of the appellant is that they have repaired the vehicle on the above date and there is no defect in the vehicle but to substantiate these facts relevant job sheets have not been filed and the

 

3

 

Forum below has rightly held that non production of job sheet is fatal for the appellant and further more the consumer has submitted the vehicle inspection report dated 30.11.2015 which also speaks that vehicle not started and battery was found discharged.

 

The contention of the appellant is that when battery was discharged it was not possible to get the vehicle start. Admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 29.8.2014 and inspection was conducted on 30.11.2015 and when vehicle was having problem in starting for more than 1 ¼ years it is obvious that the battery would discharge.

 

In view of the above facts the Forum below has rightly held that inspite of repeated reminders the defect has not been cured. The vehicle was purchased in August 2014 and till today it is defective and rightly ordered for replacement of the vehicle.

 

There is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and liable to be rejected and in view of the facts that relevant documents have been withheld and without any basis this

 

4

 

appeal has been filed just to chase the consumer, the appeal is dismissed with Rs. 5000/- cost which is payable to the consumer within one month of the order otherwise it will carry 9% interest.

(Nisha Gupta )

President

nm