State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kinetic Motor Company Limited And ... vs Yogendra Pal Sarin on 25 February, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 / 2008
1. M/s Kinetic Motor Company Limited
Block-1, Plot No. 18/2
Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra)
2. M/s Taneja Automobiles
Azad Nagar Chowk, Shiv Mandir
Dehradun Road, Roorkee
District Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Yogendra Pal Sarin S/o Sh. D.N. Sarin
R/o 34, Saket Colony, Roorkee
District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ajay Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Sanjay Yadav, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 25/02/2011
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 333 of 2007. Vide the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to replace the scooter of the complainant with a new one carrying fresh warranty and to further pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a month from the date of the order.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Yogendra Pal Sarin had purchased a Kinetic Nova on 19.10.2006 for 2 sum of Rs. 42,282/- from M/s Taneja Automobiles, Roorkee - opposite party No. 2. The said scooter was manufactured by M/s Kinetic Motor Company Ltd., Pune - opposite party No. 1. The complainant has alleged that the said scooter had not been functioning properly from the very beginning of its purchase and had several problems in its battery, kick, starting, self, shocker, horn and mileage. The opposite parties were informed in this regard several times in writing vide letters dated 30.01.2007, 20.03.2007, 14.06.2007 and 20.09.2007, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his complaints. The complainant has, thus, alleged that the opposite parties have made deficiency in service by not curing the defects of the scooter during the warranty period. On filing a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar in this regard, the District Forum, by its majority order, allowed the same in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The main contention of the appellants - opposite parties is that the complainant availed only one free service of the said scooter after its purchase out of the three free services which were necessary for the proper maintenance of a new scooter. Further, if the free services are not availed or the services are not done on due dates, the warranty conditions are violated and the warranty does not remain in force. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the scooter in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. In this regard, the learned counsel pointed out to the affidavit dated 17.03.2008 of Sh. Kush Kumar Shukla, Service Engineer of the manufacturing company (Paper Nos. 22 to 23). It was also argued 3 that the complainant has not filed any technical report in respect of the scooter in question.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant - respondent reiterated the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant before the District Forum.
6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We do not agree with the view of the District Forum that the appellants have failed in submitting a technical report to the effect that the scooter had no manufacturing defect. As a matter of fact, it was for the complainant to submit such a report in support of his allegations. So far as the appellants' version is concerned, the Service Engineer of the company has averred in his affidavit that the scooter has no manufacturing defect. The District Forum has failed to consider the averments made by the Service Engineer in his affidavit, who is supposed to be technically qualified.
7. Further, the warranty conditions provide that it would become void if the owner / purchaser has not availed the services as per specified schedule. On this point, we wanted to examine the service booklet provided by the company, but the complainant has stated that he had given it to the appellant No. 2. What we find is that the complainant appears to be quite aware of his consumer rights, but at the same time, it was a foolish act on his part if he had handed over the service booklet to the dealer. Without the service booklet and job cards, it can not be ascertained as to when the services, free or paid, were due and as to how the complainant has availed them. But it is not disputed that the complainant has availed only one service and, therefore, it is certainly a violation of the warranty conditions. The District Forum, in its majority order, has not given any finding on this 4 point. However, the learned President of the District Forum, in his dissenting order, has discussed this fact also. We are in complete consonance with the view of the learned President of the District Forum. However, keeping in view that the complainant had sent four letters to the appellants with regard to defects in the scooter and the appellants have not controverted the said statement of the complainant, we also support the view of the learned President of the District Forum that the appellants should provide to the complainant all the services, free or paid, so that the defects of the scooter could be cured.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The majority order dated 17.11.2008 of the District Forum is set aside. The dissenting order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the learned President of the District Forum, with our endorsement, will now be the order of the District Forum and the appellants are directed to make compliance of the said order. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) K