Manufacturer's liability to replace defective goods or refund the price to the consumer.

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President — This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Nagpur dated 11.10.91 passed in Complaint No. 151/91. The respondent Shri Somasi Saunand had approached the District Forum,” Nagpur alleging that the Luna Moped manufactured’ by M/s Kinetic Engineering Co. Ltd. was having a defect. The complainant identified the defect of leakage of petrol and, therefore, approached the appellant the Dealer for getting the defect of luna removed. According to the appellant, necessary efforts were made to remove the defect and that the Moped two wheeler was in order. The District Forum found that the vehicle was defective and no proper service was rendered by the dealer viz., me appellant and passed the impugned order.

2. We have heard Shri R.O. Chabra, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.V.R. Murty, Advocate for the respondent. According to Shri Chabra, the appellant was willing to remove the defect but the complainant did not co-operate with him in as much as the vehicle was not brought to the garage for subsequent repairs. A letter dated 2.5. 91 was sent to the complainant to bring the vehicle for purposes of repairs; but the complainant did not bring the vehicle to the garage of the appellant and, therefore, no repairs were carried out. According to Shri Murty, this letter was after the complaint was filed before the District Forum. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, we find that the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was a defect in the vehicle as regards the carburettor which was leaking petrol. Even according to appellant, it was a defect and, therefore, they tried to rectify it. The fact demonstrates that there was a defect in the Luna and, therefore, the complainant was compelled to approach the appellant repeatedly. According to .complainant, even after the repairs were carried out by the appellant, the defect persisted. In view of this admitted fact of the defect in the carburettor of the Moped, the District Forum was justified in coming to the conclusion that the complainant has proved his complaint.

3. Shri Chabra further argued that the District Forum was not correct in directing the payment of registration fee, insurance charges and the 18% p.a. interest on the total amount of the price of the Luna to the complainant. We think Shri Chabra’s contentions on this point are worth consideration. The order to repay registration fee and insurance charges, and interest appears to be incorrect. It is the duty of the consumer to pay such charges. We would like, therefore, to modify the order of the District Forum to the extent that the registration fee, insurance charges, and the 18% p.a. interest on ‘‘ the amount of the price of the vehicle in question are not liable to be paid by the appellant.

4. We have found from the records that the vehicle was manufactured by M/s Kinetic Engineering Co. Ltd., Pune who was made opponent No. 1, before the District Forum. The opponent No. 1, M/s Kinetic Engineering Ltd. also participated in the deliberations before the District Forum. However, we find that no order has been passed against M/s Kinetic Engineering Co. who are responsible for the defect in the manufacture of the Luna in question. The dealer is having a limited liability of rendering the post-sale service within the period of warranty. The price ultimately goes to the manufacturer. Under these circumstances, we find that the appeal has to be partly allowed and the order of the District Forum requires to be modified keeping into consideration this aspect in mind.

We further find that since the Luna sold to complainant was having manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is liable to replace the defective good of the similar description free from any defect. It is, therefore, necessary that M/s Kinetic Engineering Co. Ltd. is required to either place a new vehicle at the disposal of the appellant for being given to the complainant or return the price of Luna to the com