M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 1383 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 22.8.2016 passed in C.C.No.210/2014 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

CENTRAL MOTORS & ANR.                                                                    …          APPELLANTS

 

           Versus

                 

UMESH KUMAR DAKSH                                                                           …         RESPONDENT.

                                      

BEFORE:

                 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA :      MEMBER

                 

                                      O R D E R

 

10.08.2023

 

            Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.

            None for the respondent

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                    Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.210/2014 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, the opposite parties have filed the instant appeal.

2.                The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant purchased a Mastero Moped bearing registration number MP-15 ML-3700 from the opposite party no.1. The subject vehicle was manufactured by the opposite party no.2. It is alleged by the complainant that on being used the vehicle it is found that the average as assured was not given by the vehicle. Some part of the white vehicle became yellow, thereafter battery problem also came to the notice of the

-2-

complainant. It is further alleged that despite repeated complaints, the opposite parties failed to remove the defects in the subject vehicle and therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite parties denying the other allegations made in the complaint admitted the fact of selling the subject vehicle to the complainant. It is submitted that the vehicle was under warranty and as and when the complainant brought the vehicle, servicing was properly done up to his satisfaction. The complainant never made any complaint with regard to change of colour and battery. The warranty on battery was given by the battery manufacturer details of which were given in owner’s manual. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle but no expert evidence in that regard was produced. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission partly allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the parts which changed their colour from white to yellow with newone, within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.12,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. Hence this appeal by the opposite parties.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants argued that the District Commission has erred in not appreciating the fact that the complainant failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his allegation that change in colour was due to manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle. The District Commission

-3-

on the basis of photographs produced by the complainant assumed that the there was change in colour, whereas the complainant never made any such complaint to the opposite parties during servicing of the vehicle. He therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the record as also the impunged order we find that the complainant has challenged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document