STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 18.10.2024 Date of Reserve : 06.02.2026 Date of Decision : 06.03.2026

1. Shiv Motors, Authorized Sub Dealer, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Buchre Road, G.T. Road, Sadhugarh, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Sole Proprietor – Mohan Lal.

2. Dada Motors, G.T. Road, Near U.K. Palace, Khanna (Mandi Gobindgarh Side), Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its Manager – Inder Mohan Pal Singh.

3. Dada Motors, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Manager-

Inder Mohan Pal Singh.

…Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1,2&3 Versus

1. Satish Kumar aged about 49 years s/o Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, R/o Near Cinema Road, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Kaurdi Pune- 411035 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.

…Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.4 Revision Petition filed under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against orders dated 22.07.2024 & 06.09.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib in E.A. No. 9 of 2023.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Presiding Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes/No Present:-

For the petitioners : Sh.H.S.Bedi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.Puneet Singla, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/OPs No.1,2&3 to challenge the impugned orders dated 22.07.2024 & 06.09.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the “District Commission”), whereby the objections raised by the OPs in Execution Application filed by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 has been rejected vide order dated 22.07.2024 and warrants of attachments dated 06.09.2024 had been issued against JDs/Petitioners.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Petitioners in the Revision Petition are that the Respondent No.1(Satish Kumar) had purchased Pulsar 150 CC Motor Cycle from Petitioner No.1 and the bill was issued by Petitioner No.2. There was warranty of two years or 30,000 KM. After driving the vehicle for 500 KM, the bike had started giving problems. The Respondent No.1 had levelled the allegations of a manufacturing defect after running the bike for 3900 KM. Respondent No.1 had filed Consumer Complaint No.5 of 2018 on 19.02.2018 before the District Commission alleging manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. On 20.01.2020, District Commission had allowed the Complaint by directing the petitioners to repair the motorcycle within 30 days or refund the price with 8% interest. Petitioner No.2 had sent letters to Respondent No.1 on 03.02.2020 and requested him to bring the motor cycle for necessary repairs. On 19.02.2020, the Respondent No.1 had filed First Appeal No.112 of 2020 before this Commission. The Appeal was dismissed on 08.09.2020 with the observation by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the motorcycle was not brought for repair despite the letters. A Revision Petition No.733 of 2021 was filed by the Respondent No.1 before the National Commission, which was also dismissed on 15.01.2024. Respondent No.1 had filed Execution Application No.9 before the District Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib, to refund of paid up price of Motor Cycle and further action under the Consumer Protection Act on 18.07.2023. Petitioners had filed objections on 16.04.2024 mentioning therein that the Motor Cycle was repaired after being received from Sapna Automobile. District Commission had rejected the objections filed by the Petitioners with the direction