National Consumer Disputes Redressal
R. Baskar vs D.N. Udani And Ors. on 3 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ257(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission which dismissed the complaint, the complainant has filed this revision petition.
Case in brief:
2. The complainant purchased a Bajaj Super X Scooter from D.N. Udani Hex Bikes, an authorized distributor at Chennai of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akrudi, Pune. According to the complainant from day one after the purchase, the vehicle did not function properly and he took it to M/s. V.K. Auto P. Ltd., Chennai and then it was shown to the authorized service centre of D.N. Udani and it was found that the Oil Spark Plug was found filled with oil and he was advised that proper mixing of petrol and oil may be done in future. The defects were removed but the defects reappeared after a week. This problem reappeared again and again and it was repaired by the authorized service dealer. The opposite party wanted the complainant to give a certificate that the vehicle had been satisfactorily repaired and to take back the vehicle, but the complainant refused. Though the complainant requested for the change of the engine but the opposite party refused to do the same. Hence he filed a complaint demanding return of the price of the vehicle with 24% interest.
3. The opposite party contended in their written version that they have rectified the defects and the vehicle was in very good condition. Despite the letter written to the complainant stating that if delivery was not taken he would have to pay demurrage, still he did not take possession thereof. Complainant was only interested in getting refund of the price of the vehicle and interest thereon.
4. Holding that the opposite party were deficient in service, the District Forum directed the refund the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 24,393 with interest (c) 18% p.a., Rs. 3,000 as compensation, Rs. 1,193 and Rs. 706 as expenses incurred along with Rs. 500 as costs.
5. The State Commission held that there is absolutely no evidence to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is not the grievance of the complainant that the opposite parties failed to attend to the repair work during the guarantee period. Complaint was filed after one year and five months of purchase after the vehicle had run 9808 kms. There is absolutely no justification for refund of the price of the vehicle. Accordingly, appeal was allowed.
Submissions of the learned Counsel for the complainant/petitioner:
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was major problem in engine spark plug which is flooded with oil and from time to time the engine did not start. The dealer and the authorized-service engineer tried to rectify the defects but were in vain. Spark plug parts were replaced on payment. The State Commission had not looked into these aspects. Petitioner had also written to Bajaj Auto Ltd., for replacing the engine. They delayed the action to come out of the guarantee period till the expiry of the guarantee period.
Submissions of the learned representative for respondent/opposite party No. 2:
7. 1 R.N. Srinivasan, Manager (Legal) representing respondent No. 2 Bajaj Auto Ltd., submitted that the entire allegation of the complainant that the two-wheeler purchased in July, 1995 was having manufacturing defects and the respondents could not rectify the same is not true. If the vehicle was having manufacturing defects if could not have been used for one year and five months and run more than 9500 kms. All the job cards produced before the Consumer Fora would show that all the routine maintenance warranty service were provided to the vehicle. Further this Commission has consistently held that when, ever arty replacement or refund is sought of the product, the complainant should prove or establish manufacturing defects. Lastly he submitted that the vehicle was repaired and tested and kept ready for delivery and the complainant was repeatedly called to take the delivery of the vehicle but he deliberately refused to take delivery only with ulterior motive to get the total refund of the price of the vehicle without even testing or riding the vehicle.
Findings:
8. We have perused the records of the case and heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the complainant and the respondent-Manager (Legal) representing respondent No. 2-Bajaj Auto Ltd., considering the facts that the vehicle had been in use for one year and five months and had run over 9808 kms, it is difficult to believe that it is suffering from manufacturing defects. Further, the vehicle was repaired by the opposite parties and kept ready for delivery still the complainant refused even to test ride the vehicle. As refusal to take delivery leads us to the conclusion that complainant is only interested in refund of the amount. This Commission in EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. Baby Benjamin Thushara I (1992) CPJ 279 (NC) has held that:
In a complaint when it is alleged that the article in question suffers from manufacturing defect, it is necessary to send the said article for laboratory examination.
9. This Commission in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. B.G. Thakurdesai and Anr. II (1993) CPJ 225 (NC), held that:
If a consumer purchases some machinery and some part of it is found having manufacturing defect and that part can be replaced then it will be very prejudicial to the interest of the manufacturer if he is asked to replace the whole machinery without sufficient cause.
10. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission. Revision Petiton is, therefore, dismissed.