ORDER

Inder Singh Mehta, President.—The instant appeals are arising out of the common order dated 05.10.2023 passed by learned District Commission, Una Camp at Hamirpur, H.P. in consumer complaint No.234/2021 titled Meera Devi Versus R.R. Automobiles Centre & Anr.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a new Hero Super Splender Motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MBLIAW060K9G08417, Engine No.IA06EHK9 G08005 of RBIC colour from opposite party No.1/dealer on 15.08.2019. The motorcycle in question was registered in the office of Registering and Licensing Authority, Bangana vide registration No.HP-78-6710. Warranty for engine of motorcycle was for five years but after one year of its purchase the engine of motorcycle started giving noise problem which fact was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1/dealer. The opposite party No.1/dealer checked the motorcycle and after checking up, changed the engine oil. Thereafter, motorcycle was handed over to complainant with assurance that there will be no noise in the engine of the motorcycle now. But thereafter, engine of the motorcycle again started giving noise and a complaint was made to opposite parties. In the last week of June, 2021 opposite parties again mechanically checked the motorcycle on 29.06.2021 and changed the silent chain assembly of motorcycle. After few days, same problem occurred in the motorcycle and then motorcycle was taken to the workshop of Baldev Raj and Sons at Palampur, District Kangra, where motorcycle was thoroughly checked up and got the parts of engine replaced which were under warranty. Despite replacement of parts, there was no improvement in the noise in the engine. Thereafter, the company directed the complainant to get the motorcycle repaired from Raizada Automobiles, Una where mechanic of workshop examined the engine and fully changed the parts of engine. After one month of repair, engine of motorcycle again started giving noise and despite making complaints to the opposite parties, no action was taken by them. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1/dealer contested the complaint by filing reply and stated that there was no noise in the engine of the motorcycle. After purchase of motorcycle, the complainant has plied the motorcycle upto 16.08.2021 and as per invoice of different dates, motorcycle was found in good condition and there was no noise in the engine. The opposite party No.1/dealer tried to solve the problem by best efforts and never refused for any service or support. The complainant also got replaced the parts of the motorcycle in the workshop at Palampur. The motorcycle in question was found in good condition as there was no noise in the engine. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. No reply was filed on behalf of opposite party No.2/manufacturer within stipulated period, hence defence of opposite party No.2/manufacturer was struck off by learned District Commission below.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the opposite party No.1/dealer and the opposite party No.2/manufacturer filed these two separate appeals.

8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant/dealer and respondent/complainant as well as record of the case file carefully.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/manufacturer has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and facts as the complainant has failed to prove on record the manufacturing defect in the motorcycle in question and as such same is required to be set aside. He prays that appeal of the appellant/manufacturer be allowed.

10. On the other hand, SPA of respondent No.1/complainant has submitted that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle bearing No.HP-78-6710 from