THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PANAJI – GOA.



Present:

Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia … Presiding Member

Smt. Caroline Collasso … Member



Appeal No. 52/2008



Bajaj Auto Ltd. Akurdi,

Pune – 411035.

(Original O.P. No.2) …Appellant



v/s



1. Shri Santosh S. Tari,

H.No.1138, Akhada,

St. Estevam, Tiswadi Goa.

(Original Complainant)



2. Caculo Auto Park Ltd.,

G-7/A-1, Cacula Enclave,

Opp. Fire Service H.Q.

Panjai-Goa. … Respondents

(Original O.P.No.1)



For the Appellant …Shri U. Rao, Advocate.

Respondent No.1 present in person



Dated:29-06-2009

ORDER



[Per Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member]



1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 28-07-2008 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 by the Complainant on 09-01-2004. 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 end 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 17-01-2004 after major repairs under protest but various other problems continued.



3. He brought these problems to the notice of the Opposite Party through various letters and sent a notice on 02-02-2004. 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 08-01-2004 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 08-01-2004 and within a few days i.e. on 15-01-2004, 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 is 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., versus Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2008 CTJ Vol. 16 No. II, Page 140.



“In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. Further, in such cases, the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power.



Further, a person who purchases a vehicle, may be luxury Accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied, if it is a defective vehicle. That the defect may not be a major one but the consumer loses satisfaction of having a new car. That loss of satisfaction would be much more in a case when the person buys the vehicle with his hard-earned money. Unfortunately, we have not developed the tendency of accepting the defects or defaults. By some measure or means, the tendency to accept the defects or defaults is required to be encouraged. Otherwise, delay in disposal of such cases defeats the rights and the consumer gets frustrated. On occasions, litigation is dragged on for taking undue advantage of delay in disposal. …………. May be that such defects may occur in one of thousand vehicles but, at the same time, it is the duty of the reputed/established manufacturer to replace such a vehicle.”



12. The District Forum has directed the refund of the amount of Rs.30,821/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 08-01-2004 till full payment. Further costs of Rs.5,000/-were also awarded. The interest awarded is rather high and ought to be reduced.





ORDER



The judgment and order of the District Forum dated 28-07-2008 is partly modified only to the extent of the interest on amount of Rs.30,821/-. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.30,821/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08-01-2004 till full payment. No further order as to costs.



Pronounced.