Date of filing: 22.02.2018 Date of disposal: 22. 01.2020
Complainant: Md. Mehedi Hassan, S/o. Sk, Alauddin, resident of Seherapara, PO. & PS: Suri, District: Birbhum, PIN – 731 101.
Opposite Party: Sri Ram Automobiles, represented by its Manager, having its office at 26/1, Raghunathpur, Tejgunj, PO: Natungunj, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 102.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Shri Sailaranjan Das
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Sougata Dey.
J U D G E M E N T
The fact in brief is that Md. Mehedi Hassan, (hereinafter, complainant) purchased a Royal Enfield motor-bike on 4th July, 2016 and the same was registered with the Number WB 54R 6612 with the entitlement of four (4) free servicing. On 22nd March, 2017 the complainant was going towards Nabadwip and decided to go for servicing before that and approached Sriram Automobiles Authorized Service Centre of Royal Enfield, hereinafter, OP. The OP stated that there may be an expenditure of Rs. 1000=00 to Rs. 1200=00 and the complainant agreed to pay the same. The OP serviced the vehicle and charged a sum of Rs. 896=00. Thereafter, while proceeding towards Nabadwip the vehicle developed some serious problems in the back wheel and became heated and smoke started coming out from the back side of the vehicle. The complainant was compelled to bring back the vehicle to the OP and OP after attending the vehicle returned the same to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 252=00 was charged on account of changing break and its parts. But again a journey of 35 kms towards Nabadwip, the vehicle again started giving problem and the complainant was compelled to approach the OP again. Since it was already late, the OP refused to render any service. The complainant was compelled to approach the police authority to arrange his stay in a hotel. After spending the night in the said Hotel (Samrat Hotel) and incurring an expenditure of Rs. 350=00 towards room rent, on the next date the complainant received the vehicle from the gatekeeper of the OP and started his journey next day, i.e., 24.03.2017, but erroneously typed 24.03.2017 instead of 23.03.2017. But when the complainant reached near Berhampur again the vehicle developed some technical problem and the complainant was forced to walk 4 kms along with the vehicle and gave the vehicle to Maxwell Motors, another Service Centre of Royal Enfield. They repaired the vehicle and returned the same. The complainant submits that he was harassed by the OP and the OP did not render proper service and as such the conduct of the OP is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the following prayers have been made.
- Directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000=00 towards mental pain and agony and harassment suffered by the complainant,
- Directing the OP to pay Rs. 20,000=00 for litigation cost.
The OP filed a written version and the allegations made in the complaint have been denied by them. It has been stated by the OP that each and every vehicle of Royal Enfield passed through rigorous test before the same comes for sale. It has been stated by the OP that the instant complaint is completely false, frivolous and the complainant has not approached the Ld. Forum with clean hands. In support of their allegation they have stated that on 22nd March, 2017 at around 11:30 am one Sabir Ahamed approached the OP for getting the vehicle serviced, though there was no prior booking. On proper checking it was found that there was need of wheel alignment and the brake shoe of the Bike required to be replaced with a new one. But the said Sabir Ahamed declined to change the break shoe. Sabir Ahamed did not agree to get the break shoe replaced as it would take around 5 hours. But still the OP put a comparatively new break shoe from another Bike and urged Sabir Ahamed to immediately purchase a break shoe. Thereafter, the OP thoroughly serviced the Bike and Engine Oil, Oil Filter, Battery, spray was also done and the break shoe was purchased by the customer, though the same was not fitted with the Motor-bike. The OP submitted that the complainant never came to the OP and only Sabir Ahamed came to the OP on 22nd March, 2017.
The hotel bill annexed with the complaint and also in the written version was in the name of Sabir Ahamed. Therefore, the complainant was never present before the OP. It has further been stated that on 23rd March, 2017 one Mirza Jasimuddin of Bolpur appeared before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Burdwan on the self-same ground. The complainant also been had stated that he went to Berhampur on the next date which was a misconceived as Mirza Jasimuddin filed the complaint on 23rd March, 2017 against the OP. The complainant has not furnished any GDE number in support of his claim that he had approached police authorities. The complainant further stated on 24.03.2017 the complainant received his vehicle whereas he furnished a hotel bill only for 22nd March, 2017. The complainant’s assertion is that he had reached Berhampur on his way was completely impossible as Berhampur is situated at about 110 kms north of Nabadwip and one had to go to Nabadwip from Burdwan and then to Berhampur. The OP further submitted that Sabir Ahamed received the Bike after test drive of the same and he had accepted the vehicle with full satisfaction endorsing his signature in the job card but never came back to the OP as has been stated in the complaint. The OP has stated that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the C.P. Act with cost being false, frivolous, vexatious and misconceived.
The OP filed a detailed questionnaire on 23.08.2018. The Complainant availed seven adjournments for filing reply to the questionnaire but failed to do so. Thus Ld. Forum was constrained to reject the prayer of further adjournment for filing reply to the questionnaire on 08.07.2019, i.e., almost one year from the date of filing questionnaire.
Decision with reasons:-
We have heard the submission of the Ld. Counsels of both the sides, perused the complaint, written version and all the documents attached with the same.
As per the complainant he approached the OP personally on 22.03.2017 personally. On the other hand, the OP has averred supported with document, i.e., customer satisfaction. From that the complainant never approached the OP. One Sabir Ahamed approached and while taking delivery of the Motor-Cycle he has signed as Sabir Ahmed. Sabir Ahamed has put his signature below the statements “Test ride take”, “Vehicle was attended to my satisfaction and I have taken delivery of the vehicle”. Also the Hotel bill issued by Samrat Hotel bears the name of Sabir Ahamed.
Therefore, it is clearly established that the complainant never appeared before the OP and it was Sabir Ahamed who actually approached the OP. It is also established that the vehicle was serviced satisfactorily and delivery was taken after test ride.
The complainant claimed that on the next day he was at Berhampur (possibly erroneously stated as 24.03.2017 instead of 23.03.2017P which was not be a fact as one is required to reach Nabadwip before reaching Berhampur.
Curiously, on 23.03.3027 a complaint was lodged before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Burdwan by one Mirza Jasimuddin pertaining to the self-same vehicle bearing No. WB-54R/6612. If the complainant was at Berhampur how could a complaint be lodged pertaining to his vehicle by another person on the same day.
Therefore on cursory perusal of the entire records and documents one thing become very clear that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and the instant complaint suffers from suppression of material facts. It becomes crystal clear that a case has been sought to be made out with the ulterior motive of pecuniary gain by casting aspersion on the OP without any basis.
While all the discrepancies were pointed out in the written version, the complainant never could clarify them. It is failure to file reply to the questionnaire further strengthens the fact that the instant complaint suffers from mis-representation and concealment of facts.
Though the Consumer Forum is established to protect the consumers from unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, such type of concocted complaints consumes up the valuable time of the Forum and in the process other complainants suffer. Thus, in our view, the complaint is frivolous and malafide. Therefore, such type of practice is deprecated and instant complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP with cost.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 33/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP with a direction to the complainant to deposit cost of Rs. 500=00 to the Consumer Legal Aid Account, Purba Bardhaman and submit the receipt showing such deposit within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, law will take its own course.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Saiaranjan Das) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Sailaranjan Das) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
