1 A/753/2019

Date of filing: 03.04.2019

Date of order :06.02.2024

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 753 OF 2019

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 435 OF 2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD

Markad Mahesh Aasaram, APPELLANT

R/o H-15, G.No.104, Renukapuram Colony, (Party in Person)
Satara Parisar, Beed Bypass,
Aurangabad .

VERSUS

1. Fine Honda Dealer, RESPONDENT No.1

Near Bembade Hospital, Satara Parisar, (Adv.D.T.Kamble)
Beed Bypass Road,
Aurangabad 431 010.

2. Honda Company, RESPONDENT No.2

Commercial Complex II, Sector 49, (Adv. D. T. Kamble)
Gurgaon-122018,
Near Sector 49 50 Golf Course
Extension Road,
Haryana.

CORAM :
Mr. Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
Dr..Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member,
Mr.Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member
 2 A/753/2019

JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 06/02/2024)

Per Mrs.Dr.Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.

The Appellant has challenged in this appeal, Order and

Judgment passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Aurangabad on dated 27.02.2019 in
CC/497/2018.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.

3. Appellant has submitted that he has purchased one Motor

Cycle bearing Number MH20 EZ-6931 from Respondent No.1,
which has manufactured by the Respondent No.2 by paying Rs
53,940/-.

4. It is further submitted that after purchasing the said motor

cycle, since beginning, suspension of the motor cycle was not
properly worked. Hence appellant communicated this problem to
the Respondent No.1.

5. On 13/7/2018, first servicing has been done by the

Respondent No.1, but problem has not been solved. From the
first servicing, near about six times Motor Cycle is repaired by
the Respondent No.1 but problem remained same.
 3 A/753/2019

6. It is further submitted that, Respondent No.1 has gave reason

to the appellant about suspension that due to less air in the tier
of the Motor Cycle, such problem is faced by the Appellant. There
is no such problem in suspension.

7. On 31/7/2018, again Motor Cycle has been repaired by the

respondent No.1 and on that day, he changed the suspension
shock up of back side of the motor cycle. But problem has not
been solved.

8. At last, Appellant has filed online complaint to

manufacturer company i.e. Respondent No.2. In that appeal,
Appellant gave information to the Respondent No.2 that, only
back side suspension shock up has changed by the dealer but
front side shock up has not been changed, so problem has not
been resolved. As a result Appellant has suffered from the back
pain.

9. It is further submitted that Appellant has taken loan for the

purchasing of this vehicle. He has repaid the amount of Rs/-
18,000/-.

10. Appellant has suffered mentally, physically and financially

because of deficiency service given by Respondent No. 1 and 2,he
filed consumer complaint to Ld. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Aurangabad, CC. No.CC/497/2018.
 4 A/753/2019

11. Accordingly Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Aurangabad on dated 27.02.2019 in CC.
No.CC/497/2018 has given decision and directed to the
Respondent No. 1 and 2 , to repair the suspension shock-up
within 30 days from this Order. There was no such further order
about compensation and other things.

12. Appellant is not satisfied with the judgment given by Ld.

District commission Aurangabad, hence he filed appeal before
this commission.

13. Appellant himself appeared. Adv. D.T. Kamble appeared for

Respondents. Both parties submitted their written notes of
argument since long.

14. Ld. Adv. D.T.Kamble has submitted 2 citation on record for

the support of his case i.e. Chandeshwar Kumar Vs Tata
Engineering Loco Motive Co.Ltd. 1 (2007) CPJL (NC) and Mahendra
Kumar Vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd & anr. 2017 1 CPJ 333.

15. In both cases, Hon’ble NCDRC held that if vehicle has any
manufacturer defects for proving that fact there must be an
expert report,

16. As per Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot
be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods. There
must be an expert report to prove the defects in goods. But in the
 5 A/753/2019

present case, vehicle is repaired by the respondents on so many

occasions from the beginning. This fact shows that there is
manufacturing defect in the vehicle from the beginning and there
is no need to call any expert report. In view of the distinguishing
facts, the citations relied by respondents is of no help to them.

17. We perused the written notes of arguments of both parties

which were filed on 1/9/2021. Last chance was given to the both
parties to argue the matter on 11/1/2024, as written notes of
argument has been filed since long. But no one present before
this commission hence on the basis of written notes of argument
and other documents on record Commission has following
observations.

OBSERVATIONS

18. Against this background, we perused the copy of the

Complaint and written version given by the Appellant in original
proceedings before the District Consumer Commission
Aurangabad. We have also gone through the impugned
judgment. It is found that, there is error committed by the Ld.
District Consumer Commission Aurangabad on the factual
aspects.

19. It is admitted fact that, Appellant has purchased one Motor

Cycle bearing Number MH20 EZ-6931 from Respondent No.1,
 6 A/753/2019

which has manufactured by the Respondent No.2 by paying Rs

53,940/-.

20. From the record, it is seen that Respondent No.1 has time
and again attended to repair the defect. But it is no use. As such
it can be concluded that it has a manufacturer defect in it. So it
will be just direct to Respondent No.2, to take back the defective
vehicle and give him new vehicle of same kind within 45 days
from this order.

21. It is also admitted that motor cycle has been repaired so

many times but problem has not been resolved. Everyone has
purchased the vehicle for his comfort but after purchasing the
said vehicle appellant suffered mentally physically and financially
also.

22. This aspect has taken in the account to the Ld. District
Commission and not granted any compensation for the same. In
our view, Ld. District Commission Aurangabad has committed
the gross error by ignoring this issue. The impugned judgment
and order therefore required to be modified particularly directing
to the Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly to pay sum of Rs.10.000/-
to the Appellant towards the mental and physical harassment.

23. Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment is to be modified

in the following terms and Commission has right to pronounce
order accordingly.
 7 A/753/2019

ORDER
1. It is directed to the Respondents to replace the vehicle with

same kind within 45 days from this order.

2. It is directed to the Respondents to pay sum of Rs.10, 000/-

to the Appellant for his mentally and physically loss.

3. It is directed to the Respondents to pay sum of Rs.5,000/-

to the Appellant as a cost of this appeal.

4. Copy of this judgment be supplied to the both parties free of

cost.

Date :06/02/2024.
Place: Aurangabad

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

N.C.Kumbre Dr.N.A.Chavhan M. S.Sonawane
Member Member Presiding Member