STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/1061/2019 NARESH CHAND PRESENT ADDRESS - H.NO. 1917, AZAD NAGAR, SECTOR 24, NIT ,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - GATEWAY BUILDING APPOLO BUNDER, NEAR GATEWAY OF INDIA MUMBAI. ,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MR. NEETISH HANDA, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.

DATED: 19/11/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 06.12.2019 Date of final hearing: 19.11.2025 Date of order: 19.11.2025 First Appeal No.1061 of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF:-

Naresh Chand S/o Sh. Hari Shankar Shah, R/o H. No. 1917, Azad Nagar, Sector-

24, N.I.T. Faridabad, Haryana-121005.

.....Appellant Versus

1. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Appolo Bunder, Near Gateway of India, Mumbai-400001.

2. M/s Northern Motors, A-5, Neelam Bata Road, Nehru Ground, N.I.T.

Faridabad, Haryana-121001.

…..Respondents CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER Present:- Mr. Neetish Handa, counsel for the appellant.

None for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No.2.

ORDER

PER: S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

Delay of 32 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay.

2. Challenge in this Appeal No.1061 of 2019 has been invited by complainant to legality of order dated 24.09.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.400 of 2018, which was dismissed.

3. Factual matrix: Complainant bought Mahindra Centuro Bike bearing registration No. HR-87-9293 from OP No. 2. After 6 months, said motorcycle gave mileage of 30 kilometer per liter, while both Mahindra Two wheeler and Northern Motors have claimed that this motorcycle would give mileage of 65-75 kilometer per liter. There was no improvement in motorcycle mileage despite repeated complaints to OP No.2. All services of motorcycle were given at the right time by complainant, even after the third service, said motorcycle gave an average of 35 KM/L in the long route and 25KM/L in the alleys. Complainant requested the OP No.2 but there was no improvement in the mileage. Complainant had also used motorcycles of other companies before, which gave an average of 60-70 but with average work done in this motorcycle, he had to face heavy losses so far. Complainant filed complaint for issuance of directions to OPs to change the motorcycle and give another motorcycle immediately without claiming any amount from him; to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and to pay him Rs.11,000 /- towards litigation costs.

4. Upon notice, OPs No. 1 & 2 failed to appear before learned District Consumer Commission and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.10.2018.

5. OP No. 3 raised contest. In its defense, it is pleaded that complainant purchased Mahindra Centuro Bike, which is well-established product in the market and customers were using the said vehicle over a period of time without any such complaints as alleged by the complainant. Complainant had taken delivery of said vehicle after being completely satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and its performance and said vehicle was delivered to him after carrying out of Pre-Delivery Inspection by the dealer. All vehicles manufactured by OP No. 3 were marked only after the prototype of the vehicle being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. Complainant had filed his baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the said vehicle without having produced any expert opinion /documentary proof in the form of evidence from a notified laboratory to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from any alleged manufacturing defect. Complainant had purchased the vehicle on 19.10.20