National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Villinur Associates And Anr. vs Dhanaraj Denis A. on 19 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)CPJ132(NC)
ORDER
Mr. D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. This petition both by the dealer and the manufacturer of Bajaj Scooter, has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2001 of the Pondicherry State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant had dismissed the same. However, State Commission on appeal filed by the complainant allowed the same. It directed the dealer to pay to the complainant Rs. 22,400/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from 16.6.1999 till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded towards cost. A direction was also given to the complainant to surrender his scooter to the dealer.
2. Mr. R.N. Srinivasan, Authorised Representative of the dealer appeared before us. He stated that in terms of the order of the State Commission scooter has since been surrendered to the dealer but that is lying in an excellent condition and is roadworthy. He says that there was no manufacturing defect in the scooter and the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.
3. Complainant had purchased the scooter in question on 10.6.1999 for a sum of Rs. 22,400/-. He had used the scooter till three days after the order of the State Commission. That would be a period of over two years. Complaint against the scooter, as noted by the State Commission, was that scooter was not in a good condition and was emitting oil through the silencer and was making unusual noise. This problem was not rectified even after three services provided in terms of the warranty. Petitioners as opposite parties before the District Forum submitted in their written version that when the first free service was effected on 26.6.1999 it had already run 618 kms. Therefore, only minor defects were complained of like carburetor choking, poor braking, front wheel frictional sound and handle bar shake only. After three free services, these defects were rectified. Complainant himself endorsed on the worksheet that the scooter was in working condition. There was nothing on record to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the scooter for the State Commission to direct the refund of the purchase price of the scooter to the complainant. District Forum after examining the record of the case observed that all the defects which were of minor nature had been rectified and allegation of the complainant about manufacturing defect could not be proved. We do not find any ground for the State Commission to take a contrary view.
4. Before concluding we record that Mr. R. Srinivasan, Authorised Representative of the first petitioner has stated that complainant's scooter is in tip-top condition and if the delivery of the same is taken by the complainant in time, three more free services would be rendered to the complainant. We record this submission of Mr. Srinivasan. We would also state that the orders, both of the District Forum and the State Commission are too long which is not required in a consumer dispute.
5. With these observations this petition is allowed. Order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.