Two-wheeler firm, dealer fail to get relief

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 25

Hero MotoCorp Limited and a local dealer failed to get any relief from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. It has rejected their appeal challenging the order of the Consumer Forum, Chandigarh, given in the favour of a consumer.

The forum had directed the manufacturer and the dealer to refund Rs51,475, entire amount of a bike, to a consumer, Paramjeet Singh, for deficiency in service. The forum also directed the manufacturer to pay Rs17,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs7,000 as costs of litigation.

Aggrieved over the order, the company, Hero MotoCorp Limited, and the dealer challenged the order of the forum before the commission.

Paramjeet Singh purchased a Splendor Plus motorcycle from a dealer in 2018 for Rs51,475 after financing it from a finance company. He alleged that from Day 1, there was a problem of engine oil leakage and faulty speedometer. The engine oil seal was changed thrice, but the problem could not be resolved.

The complainant demanded the refund through a legal notice, but he got no response. Paramjeet approached the forum, which termed the act of the company as deficiency in service and directed it to refund the cost of the bike.

Counsel for the company and the dealer denied the allegations of the consumer. They claimed that all complaints were duly attended with utmost sincerity and repair/replacement of the defects was done to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. He was charged within the purview of the company’s warranty policy. They even pleaded that they were still ready to attend the vehicle and repair the defects, if any, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy.

After hearing the arguments and examining the records, the commission said appellants sold out a defective motorcycle to the respondent and did not provide proper service to the respondent. The respondent purchased the motorcycle to facilitate himself and his family, but not to visit the service centre of the appellants. Thus, deficiency in service is writ large on the face of the appellants. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.