Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President;
Mrs. Rumnita Mittal & Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Members
M/S. KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD.—Appellant
versus
SHASHI DHAR SHARMA & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. A-355 of 2004—Decided on 18.8.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
Manufacturers are responsible for the quality of the vehicle and the service provided, and must address and rectify defects, failing which it constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Vehicle Manufacturing Defect - The court upheld the decision of the District Forum to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest due to the manufacturer's failure to rectify the wobbling problem and the supply of an old battery, deeming it as a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a vehicle manufacturer, sold a vehicle with a wobbling problem and an old battery. Despite multiple attempts, the issue was not rectified, leading to a refund order with interest due to deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's failure to rectify the vehicle's defect and supply an old battery constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, upholding the refund order with interest.
Issues: Deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, manufacturer's responsibility for vehicle quality and service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that consumers are concerned with the quality of the vehicle and the service provided by the manufacturer and dealer, and held the manufacturer responsible for proving the absence of manufacturing defects or old components.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the refund order with interest was upheld, with the appellant directed to return the furnished FDR.
Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—The appellant is a manufacturer of the vehicle — Challenger Motor Cycle, which was purchased by the complainant/respondent for Rs. 41,970/-. The vehicle was having wobbling problem since beginning. This defect was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2, the dealer. The respondent No. 1 took the vehicle to respondent No. 2 as many as 10 times beginning from 18.7.2001 to 1.6.2002 but the said defect could not be rectified. The battery supplied by the respondent with the vehicle was found to be manufactured in September, 1999 which was almost two years old as the vehicle was sold on 4.7.2001. The battery stopped working in June 2002. The respondent even refused to entertain the claim of respondent No. 1 by telling him that it was 33 months old. On account of deficiency in service the appellant was directed to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest @ 9% vide order dated 20.2.2004. The said order has been assailed by the appellant solely on the ground that the learned District Forum has jumped to the conclusion without obtaining technical expert opinion whether the vehicle is having manufacturing defects or not.
2. On the face of it the contention of the appellant has no substance as the consumer is only concerned with the quality of the vehicle and the service provided by the manufacturer and the dealer through whom the vehicle is sold. No consumer is expected to take a new vehicle time and again and in this case the respondent No. 1 took his vehicle on as many as 10 occasions and the first occasion was hardly after 14 days of its purchase but the appellant could not rectify the defect of wobbling. It was for the appellant to produce the technical expert in support of their contention that it was not a manufacturing defect or that the battery supplied by them was not two years old. This is not only gross deficency in service, but unfair trade practice also. There is not ground to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is dismised in limine. The FDR furnished by the appellant along with the appeal be returned to the appellant forthwith.
A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
Appeal dismissed.
–
