National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Anr. vs Kirit Kumar Jagjivan Das Patel on 4 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)CPJ86(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Petitioner No. 1 was opposite party No. 1 while petitioner No. 2, opposite party No. 3. Respondent/complainant purchased Bajaj K. 4 S Champion bearing Registration No. GJ-5RR-3597 from petitioner No. 2, dealer of petitioner No. 1 company on 7.10.1997 for a sum of Rs. 36,879/-. Warranty was of one year. It was alleged that after about three months from date of purchase of the motorcycle developed defects. Despite the fact that it was repaired 8-9 times by the petitioner, the defects which were of manufacturing nature, were not removed. Alleging deficiency in service, respondent filed complaint claiming certain reliefs against the petitioners and opposite party Nos. 2 and 4. The stand taken by petitioners was that the motorcycle as and when brought was repaired to the satisfaction of respondent and in token of repairs having been carried out the signatures of respondent were taken on service card. It was denied that motorcycle was having manufacturing defects. District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioners and opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 to take back the motorcycle and refund the value thereof of Rs. 36,879/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 10.7.1997 till realisation holding that motorcycle was having manufacturing defects. Appeal filed by petitioners was disposed of by the State Commission reducing the amount to be refunded to Rs. 31,347/- by allowing 15% depreciation and interest to 9% p.a. and that too from 7.10.1997. In support of the averment that motorcycle in question was having manufacturing defects, the respondent had filed affidavit of Jagdishbhai, proprietor of an authorised service auto shop of Bajaj Company. Petitioners did not file affidavit of an expert engineer denying that the motorcycle did not have manufacturing defects. Grievance of Shri Sanjay K. Chadha for petitioners whom we heard on admission was that the State Commission did not take note of the material documents filed on 3.12.2004. Since these documents were filed after conclusion of arguments in appeal the State Commission had rightly declined to consider them. Considering the unrebutted affidavit of Jagdishbhai who had opined that motorcycle was having manufacturing defects and also motorcycle having been taken for repairs to the petitioners 8-9 times, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.