National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kinetic Motor Co. Limited vs Lt. Cdr Udaybir And Ors. on 30 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ490(NC)
ORDER
R.C. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Delhi, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum directing the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 34,521 and awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000 as cost and compensation was upheld.
2. The complaint related to the manufacturing defects of Kinetic Nova 135 CC Scooter a two-wheeler vehicle, which was admittedly sold by the petitioner to the respondent through a dealer. The complainant alleged that several defects were noticed in the vehicle at the time of service when the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the petitioner during the period of warranty. The details of the defects were as under:
I. At the time of First Service:
(a) Problem in kick starting the scooter because of kick not going down.
(b) Rubbing sound in engine (kar-kar).
(c) Jerks observed while driving.
(d) Centre stand not going backward fully.
(e) Back view mirror defective.
(f) Front shock absorber behaving as if it is worn out.
II. At the time of Second Service:
(a) The engine rubbing sound is observed to be greater. The speed and pick up affected significantly.
(b) Kick still could not be used to start the vehicle.
(c) Starting problem observed even with ignition system. Scooter required more than three attempts to start.
(d) The front wheel was now touching the left iron pipe-housing shocker resulting in wearing out of the tyre.
(e) Centre stand still remains down and it causes problem in reversing the vehicle as it touches the ground.
(f) There was also a hammering sound in high-speed (dug-dug).
III. At the time of Third Service:
(a) Starting problem with kick. The kick at time slips or gets stuck.
(b) Starting problem with ignition. Scooter was not starting at all.
(c) Engine rubbing sound.
(d) Steering not turning fully on left side.
(e) Pick-up problem.
3. The claim was resisted by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that there were no manufacturing defects in the vehicle and that no cogent evidence was led to show that there was in fact any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Both the Fora below have countered the said submissions and have held that the vehicle in question had in fact manufacturing defects and, therefore, allowed the complaint and made an order to refund the price of vehicle along with compensation.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He reiterates that the defects pointed out by the respondent are not manufacturing defects and in any case, the petitioner is prepared to rectify the same to the satisfaction of the respondent free of charge and, therefore, no order could have been made for the refund of the price of the vehicle.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration. Having regard to the nature and extent of the defects noted above we are of the opinion that the conclusion drawn by the Fora below that the vehicle in question suffers from manufacturing defects is quite justified. So far as the question whether, in the face of the said findings, the District Forum or, for that reason, the State Commission should have granted any other relief provided under Clauses "a" to "d" under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is concerned, we are of the opinion that in such a situation like the one in hand where the two-wheeler vehicle had to be taken to the workshop for rectifying the defects on number of occasions and even thereafter the said defects were not set right, the relief granted by the Consumer Fora below was the most appropriate one, because we are told that the petitioner has stopped manufacturing the said model of the vehicle.
6. Awarding compensation of Rs. 5,000 can also not be said to be harsh or excessive, keeping in view the harassment and mental agony which might have been suffered by the respondent. We, therefore, see no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.