Date of filing :06.10.2022 Date of order :23.09.2024 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 832 OF 2022 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 1252 OF 2021 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : PARBHANI.

The Manager, Appellant Chandrallama Automotive, (Adv.Shambhuraji Deshmukh)

Pravin s/o Shridharro Mudgalkar, Infront of Power house, Jintur road, Parbhani, Dist.Parbhani.

VERSUS Shri.Chetan s/o Pritamdas Lalwani, Respondent R/o Gavli Galli, Purna, Tq.Purna, (Adv.S.S.Kale)

Dist.Parbhani.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 23/09/2024)

Per Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member..

The Appellant has challenged in this appeal, impugned Judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Parbhani in C.C.No.1252/2021 dated, 01.08.2022.

For the sake of brevity the appellant is herein after referred as opponent and respondent is as complainant, as per their status in consumer complaint and District Consumer Commission, Parbhani is herein after referred as District Commission.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-

On 02.02.2022 complainant purchased two wheeler, Bullet belonging to Royal Enfield Classic 350 EFI Stealth Black company ( in short, bike) for Rs. 2,30,651/- from opponent, having registration no.MH-22-AV-0941. On 17.06.2021 said bike had a problem in its sensor and same was repaired by opponent and complainant paid its charges Rs.867.75/- On 28.06.2021 the bike has a clutch plate problem and same was repaired and resolved by opponent and complainant paid its charges Rs.2798.63/- Again on 07.08.2021 and 20.08.2021, sensor stand defect of said bike was noticed therefore complainant has left the bike with opponent and did not take back its possession till date. It is contended by complainant that bike is defective and having manufacturing defect as these problems were noticed within six month from its purchase. On 26.08.2021 complainant requested opponent to replace the bike or refund the entire price paid by him but opponent refused, therefore complainant sent legal notice on 27.08.2021 to him in this regard but opponent has not complied. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opponent, complainant filed consumer complaint claiming replacement of bike or refund of price Rs. 2,30,651/- with interest, Rs.1,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation. Complainant filed relevant document in support of his complaint

3. Opponent appeared before the District commission and filed written statement, thereby resisted the complaint and denies the allegations. It is submitted by opponent that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not implicated manufacturer as a necessary party in his complaint. Opponent is only dealer and not manufacturer of bike or its parts and having no concern with Royal Enfield Company, as such not empower to replace the bike or refund its price. It is submitted by opponent that the bike is ready for delivery after removal of its defect but complainant did not turn back to take possession of said bike. Opponent filed copy of warranty terms and conditions of bike.

4. On hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record, the District Commission held that opponent is liable and partly allowed the complaint and directed the opponent to refund the price Rs.2,30,651/- within 45 days to complainant else liable for 7% interest, Rs.2000/-for physical and mental harassment and Rs.2000/- for cost of litigation.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, opponent came to this Commission in appeal. Adv. S.V.Deshmukh for opponent and Adv. S.S.Kale for complainant were present. We heard both advocates.

6. Adv.Deshmukh for opponent argued and submitted that, complainant has raised allegations of manufacturing defect in bike but has not implicated manufacturing company as a necessary party in complaint therefore compl