SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011(1) CPR 394
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES RESDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
Mrs. Sandra Vaze Correia, Presiding Member & Mrs. Caroline Collasso, Member
Bajaj Auto Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Santosh S. Tari & Anr. —Respondent
Appeal No. 52 of 2008
Decided on 29.6.2009

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. U. Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: In person.

IMPORTANT POINT
Problems in new vehicle causes distress and inconvenience to purchaser and must be compensated.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1) (f), 2(1) (g), 2(1) (o), 15, and 17—Automobile—Manufacturing defect—OP directed by District Forum to refund amount of Rs. 30,881 along with 12% interest and cost of Rs. 500/—Vehicle started giving problems with in few days of its purchase—OP had removed entire engine from scooter in order to undertake repairs—lf problem to vehicle was indeed a minor problem as stated by OP, it is not known why entire engine of vehicle had to be removed—Consumer purchases vehicle for his use and enjoyment and if there are problems within a few days of its purchase, it is bound to cause him distress and inconvenience in taking vehicle to Service Station of OP—Impugned order of District Forum partly modified by reducing rate of interest to 9%. (Paras 8 to 12)

       

ORDER

Mrs. Caroline Collasso, Member—This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 28.7.2008 passed by District Forum, North Goa, in Complaint No. 29/2004. The present appellant was original opposite party No. 2 and respondent No. 1 was original Complainant and respondent No. 2 was original opposite party No. 2.

2. The complaint is about a manufacturing defect in a Bajaj Chetak 4 Stroke scooter purchased of the complainant on 9.1.2004. He states that few days after purchase, he noticed that the kick did not come back to its original position and remained at the lower and vehicle engine started emitting unusual sound. The complainant took the vehicle to the service centre of the opposite party and states that the engine of the vehicle had to be removed and he had taken photographs of the same. Complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 7.1.2004 after major repairs under protest but various other problems continued.

3. He brought these problems to the notice the opposite party through various letters and sent a notice on 2.2.2004. Since the Opposite Party did not comply to his demand of refund of purchase amount and compensation, the complaint was filed.

4. The opposite party refuted the charges of inherent manufacturing defect and stated that the problems of kick start, small wear and tear problems were minor and which was attended to promptly as vehicle was within warranty.

5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and Opposite Party was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 30,821 along with interest @ 12% from 8.1.2004 till full payment and costs of Rs. 5,000.

6. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal was filed. The Appellant claimed that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that the problems complained of were minor and could not be termed as manufacturing defect and that the vehicle was immediately attended to and complainant has given the satisfaction note. The appellant also make a grievance that various case laws submitted by the Appellant were not relied on and the case laws relied on were not applicable to the case on hand. Appellant stated that relying on bald allegations of complainant without support of an expert report/opinion was improper and against the principles of natural justice.

7. Besides the complaint and written version various photographs, letters, judgments were relied upon by both parties. We have carefully perused the same.

8. We see that the complainant had purchased the said bike on 8.1.2004 and within a few days i.e. on 15.1.2004, the vehicle started giving problems, i.e. the kick for starting the vehicle was giving problems. Also, unusual engine sound was noticed. The photographs placed on record by the complainant clearly show that the opposite party had removed the entire engine from the scooter in order to undertake the repairs. If the problem to the vehicle was indeed a minor problem as stated by the opposite party, it is not known why the entire engine of the vehicle had to be removed; Moreso, the Opposite Party has not come clean from the issue of removal of the engine and/or denied the photographs and only states that outsiders were not allowed inside the workshop in order to avoid pilferage of parts and equipments belonging to the Company.

9. The Opposite Party had also alleged that the vehicle was giving trouble due to the faulty driving habits of the complainant. This allegation cannot be accepted as the complainant a driving operator in the office of the Fire Brigade for several years and which fact is not denied by the Opposite Party.

10. The consumer purchases the vehicle for his use and enjoyment and if there are problems within a few days of its purchase, it is bound to cause him distress and inconvenience in taking the vehicle to the Service Station of the Opposite Party.

11. The Hon’ble National Commission held in the case of Hyundai Motors India Ltd. v. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. & Anr.1

“In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top