National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dagadu Bhairu Bhosale vs Scooter India Ltd. And Anr. on 23 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2006)CPJ143(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. While the respondent No. 1 is the manufacturer of the three-wheeler, the respondent No. 2 is the authorised dealer of M/s. Scooter India Ltd.
2. Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant purchased a chassis of three-wheeler on which a body was got fitted from a private fabricator. Once he started plying the vehicle, he found difficulty in starting the vehicle. It was his case that there were several manufacturing defects in the vehicle which were neither removed by the opposite party, nor were they willing to replace the vehicle, hence the complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint. An appeal filed before the State Commission met with the same fate, hence this revision petition before us.
3. It was argued before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no problem with the body but basically on account of defective three-wheeler supplied to the petitioner, that poor man could not start his business. He drew our attention to several bills and also the contents therein. According to the learned Counsel, they are indicative of manufacturing defect and secondly his case was that he was made to pay for these repairs within the warranty period.
4. We heard the arguments and also perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that three-wheeler chassis was purchased from the respondent No. 2, manufactured by the respondent No. 1. But as we see that there is no evidence brought on record, of any person qualified to state so, that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. After perusal of the receipts of repair, brought on record, we do not see that any of them could be said to be leading us to conclude that there was manufacturing defect. Basically they were replacement of consumables and other repair charges and nowhere, at no stage, anyone has stated that chassis had a manufacturing defect, in the absence of which, we are in no position to take any different view than both the lower fora that there was a manufacturing defect.
5. It is admitted position that the chassis was purchased on 21.1.91 by paying the requisite amount and it carried a warranty for three months or 7,500 kms. whichever is earlier. The receipts brought on record are largely of consumables to begin with like nut-bolts, gear oil, battery pacers, (which are replaced under warranty clause), differential oil, etc. Since these are not covered under the warranty, we also see no merit in this claim of the petitioner. Without going into the question of limitation, we find petitioner has failed to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the chassis supplied by the respondents.
6. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in the revision petition filed before us, hence dismissed.