Service providers must ensure adequate security for clients' property and communicate promptly regarding incidents of theft.

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-III, dated 24.10.2018 in CC 524/2016 where under the opposite party was declared as deficient in service and negligent in nature and directed to pay Rs.2,19,437/- to the complainant towards costs of new KTM Duke 390 CC, motor bike and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days, failing which the amounts awarded would carry interest 7% per annum till realization.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased KTM Duke 390 CC Motor Bike, worth Rs.2,19,437/- inclusive of all charges from the opposite party vide invoice dated 13.05.2015; that the bike was registered before RTA, Secunderabad vide No.TS-10 ED 4424 and it was insured with Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, for the period from 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016; that after sometime the brake lever of the bike was damaged when it fell down and to attend the repairs, was given to opposite party on 09.02.2016, for repairs vide Job Card No.2547; that after 04 days, the opposite party informed that the bike was stolen from its garage and they lodged a complaint with the Police, Begumpet and bike is not yet traced out; that it was informed to the complainant vide email dated 02.03.2016, stating that the bike was stolen on 10.02.2016 and FIR No.65/2016 dated 13.02.2016 was lodged; that by the date of delivery of bike to the opposite party on 09.02.2016, the Odo meter reading was around 5,000 to 6,000 kms; that there is a delay of 03 days in lodging the complaint with Police by the opposite party; that when the complainant insisted for the new bike, the opposite party addressed a letter, dated 25.03.2016 stating that they would pay compensation to the complainant after their insurance claim is settled and in case, if the bike is traced out, they would attend repairs in all respects and handover the same; that the complainant had not agreed to receive the bike with repairs; that on 25.05.2016 the opposite party informed that the bike was traced out which in fact had taken place 99 days after the theft; that the complainant took photos of the bike and found that there were damages at the fork, engine, clutch, gear box, worn out tyres and chopped tail etc.,; that on 31.05.2016 addressed an email to the opposite party by attaching photos; that replay email was given by the opposite party, dated 04.06.2016 that they would replace all the damaged parts with new one and informed that the bike is ready for test drive; that the complainant refused to receive the bike and insisted for the new bike or 100% cash back; that on 17.06.2016, the complainant sent an email demanding for new bike and the opposite party gave a reply dated 24.06.2016 by repeating earlier stance, hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments as made in the complaint, except those that are admitted; that the complainant not approached the Commission with clean hands with motivated allegations to gain undue advantage; that the complainant suppressed the fact that the vehicle was given for repairs on 09.02.2016, after it involved in an accident; that the complainant suppressed that while handing over the vehicle to opposite party instructed the opposite party to make a claim for insurance against damages caused to the vehicle; that there is no deficiency of