This is a discussion on Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI – GOA Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia ...Presiding Member Smt. Caroline Collasso ...
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANAJI – GOA
Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia ...Presiding Member
Smt. Caroline Collasso ... Member.
Appeal No. 64/ 2008
Mr. Michael D’Souza,
Major, Indian National,
Muddawado, Saligao, Bardez Goa. … Appellant
1. M/s Premium Kinetic,
Through its Manager,
3, Shanta Niwas, St.Inez, Panaji-Goa.
2. Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Represented by Service Engineer,
Dnyanesh A. Karajgar,D-1 Bloc,
18/2 MIDC, Chinchwad, Pune 411019. Respondents
(Original Opposite Parties)
For the appellant… Shri M. D’Souza, Advocate
[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1. This appeal is taken up for admission. The appellant Mr. Michael D’Souza is the complainant in Consumer Dispute no. 105/2004 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) North Goa; he is aggrieved by the order dated 24-10-2008 whereby his complaint was dismissed. The respondents are the opposite parties.
2. The complainant purchased a “Kinetic Nova” 135 cc scooter from the opposite party no.1 for a basic price of Rs.38,115/- delivery of which was taken on 21-09-2004. The vehicle carried a warranty to be free from any manufacturing defect with undertaking to repair or replace free of charge within a period of twelve months or running of 10,000/- kms whichever earlier. According to the complainant, the vehicle started giving problems from the very date of delivery and was defective. The defects ranged from serious starting problems, shock absorber and headlight defects, oil leakage etc. The vehicle was taken to the opposite party no. 2 on 24-09-2004 but except for merely changing the engine oil and crudely sealing the oil leak, the opposite party did nothing. The problems continued and the vehicle was taken back to the opposite party a fortnight later on 07-10-2004. This time, the complainant was assured that the problem would be looked into to his satisfaction. However, the complainant was kept in the dark about the check up procedure and the problems continued to persist. The complainants request to furnish copy of the job card was denied; it allegedly disclosed that the scooter suffered from manufacturing defects. The complainants repeated requests to the opposite parties to rectify the defects fell on deaf ears. The complainant alleged that the scooter suffered from manufacturing defect. He prayed for refund of the purchased price alongwith interest and for Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
3. Per contra, the complaint was resisted by the opposite parties who submitted that the vehicle was free from any manufacturing defects and was perfectly in order and in road worthy condition. The complainant availed of free service on 07-10-2004 at which time the complaint was promptly attended to. In view of the complainant’s grievances thereafter, he was requested to make the vehicle available for necessary inspection and a letter was addressed to him on 09-10-2004 followed up by three reminders on 21-10-2004, 28-10-2004 and 01-11-2004. Without giving any opportunity to the opposite parties to redress his grievances, the complainant rushed to the District Forum with his complaint. The opposite party expressed its readiness to inspect and thoroughly check up the vehicle.
4. The District Forum upon considering the pleading of the parties and the evidence on record came to a finding that the complainant had not proved his case and that the opposite parties had done their best in a spirit of goodwill to attend to all complaints alleged by the complainant, and dismissed the complaint.
5. We heard Ld Adv Shri Myron D’Souza for the appellant. Shri D’Souza contends that the service report of the opposite parties indicated defects in the vehicle and so did the report of his witness/mechanic. The Forum had erred in holding that the complainant had agreed that the sum of Rs.15,000/- had been spent on the vehicle which was untrue.
6. We called for and perused the records and proceedings of the lower forum and gave due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. The purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, its delivery on 21-09-2004 and it being brought to the opposite party for free service/check-up on 07-10-2004 are admitted. The complainant has relied on the job card of the opposite party dated 17-10-2004 and the report of his witness Shri Raju Mandrekar in support of his case. We perused the said two documents and found no evidence of inherent manufacturing defect to warrant refund of the purchase price and return of the vehicle. The job card mentions the customer’s complaints in the first column while the second column has the notings of the opposite parties service personnel. Against the complaint “oil leakage” the noting reads “checked nut-bolts”. Against the other three complaints “petrol leakage”, “check jerking” and “starting problem” the noting reads “not observed”. Turning to the report of Shri Raju Mandrekar, although the witness mentions certain mechanical problems and oil/petrol leakage, to hold that these problems confirm inherent manufacturing defects which cannot be repaired would be rather far fetched; at least the complainants witness does not say so.
7. It is apparent from the proceedings that when the matter was referred to ‘Lok Adalat’ on 30-11-2007, the complainant submitted a list of repair works which were apparently carried out by the opposite parties incurring an expense of Rs.15,000/- towards replacement of parts etc. Although the complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the work, there is nothing on record produced by him to indicate the nature and reasons for his dissatisfaction. Neither have these been explained before us.
8. We find that the opposite parties have made every effort to redress the grievances of the complainant commencing with their three communications during the period 21-10-2004 to 01-11-2004 followed up by their action of replacing certain parts of the vehicle incurring an expense of Rs.15,000/-. Although the complainant continues to be dissatisfied he has not been forthcoming with the exact nature of the alleged continuing inherent manufacturing defects. Replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price can be awarded only in cases where inherent manufacturing defect is proved beyond doubt and where repairs and/or replacement of critical parts will be fruitless in getting the vehicle to road-worthy condition.
9. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Forum which has considered all aspects of the case and come to the finding which we have no reason to disagree with.
10. There is no merit in this appeal and accordingly it stands dismissed. There shall be no costs.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia]