BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.774 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.159 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

1. M/s.Varun Motors, (Authorized Dealers for Bajaj Auto Ltd.), Represented through its Manager, Sy.No.59, D.No.1-110/A/118, Gopal Reddy Nagar, Near Kondapur RTO Office, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084.

2. M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., Rep. through its Managing Director, Regd. Office: Akurdi, Pune – 411035.

Maharashtra State.

....Appellants/Opp.Parties 1 & 2 And Ramandandam Naresh Babu, S/o.R.Seshaiah, Aged 30 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o.Flat No.16/A, Employees Colony, Near Baptist Church, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy District.

Rep. by R.Sivanayana (brother)

....Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/OPs 1 & 2 : M/s.Indus Law Firm Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Party in Person QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU….MEMBER-JUDICIAL FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble I/c President)

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the order dated 04.10.2019 passed in CC.No.159 of 2017 by the District Commission, Ranga Reddy in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants are the Opposite Parties and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.159/2017.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that – the Complainant purchased a Discover 125 Disc brake motor cycle from the Opposite Party No.1 for a total sum of Rs.54,117.28 vide invoice No.VS1117162015003366on 30.11.2015. He claims to have spent further amount towards accessories, spare parts, life tax, registration etc. The vehicle was provided with a warranty for a period of two years. His main complaint is that all the gears are giving problem and not shifting smoothly. Despite the free services, the problem persisted and the gear box was also changed by Opposite Party No.1. However, on account of recurring problem, he is facing great difficulty in plying the vehicle and has filed the present complaint stating that the Opposite Parties have supplied a defective vehicle and failed to rectify the problem. Therefore, he has sought for replacement with a brand new one or in the alternate, refund the cost of the vehicle together with interest.

4. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their written version. It is their argument that the Complainant visited for the first time during the first free service on 25.12.2015 and reported that the gears are hard to apply. The vehicle had plied 721 kms as on that date. Upon checking it was found that the vehicle clutch cable was loose and when clutch is loose, gears may become little harder. After general servicing and after clutch adjustment, the said problem was eliminated which was confirmed by the Complainant after taking test drive and he also signed to the effect that he was satisfied and further the Opposite Party No.1 delivered the subject vehicle on the same day.

5. The problem was not recurring as per their job card and it is to be emphasized that there is no manufacturing defect. In fact it is due to negligent maintenance of the vehicle that the repairs have occurred and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part. 6. During the course of enquiry the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. The Opposite Parties filed their evidence affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 are marked on their behalf.

7. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material available on record, partly allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally “to refund t