PANAJI GOA.

Present:

Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia Presiding Member

Smt. Caroline Collasso /span>Member

Appeal /span>No.14/2008

Shree /span>Jeevan Yeshwant /span>Asnodkar

Major, resident of Buttin Waddo,

Porvorim, Bardez Goa.span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>Appellant

(Original Complainant)

v/s

1.    Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

Represented by Managing Director

Having office at Akurdi Pune India.

/span>

2.    M/s Caculo AutoPark Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Having office at G-7/A-1

Opp. Fire Services H.Q.

St. Cruz, Panaji Goa. Respondents

(Original Opposite Parties)

For the Appellant st1:place w:st="on">Shri U./span>Rao/span>Advocate.

/span>/span>For the RespondentsShri R. Gauns, /span>Advocate

Dated: 22-12-2008

ORDER

[Per Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member]

1.    /span>Complainant/Appellant seeks to challenge order dated/span>29-01-2008 of District Forum, North Goa, in Consumer Dispute No.59/2002.

2.    /span>Brief facts of the complaint is that the Complainant/Appellant had purchased a passenger rickshaw from Respondent No.2 on 22/01/2001 for an amount of Rs.23,000/- whichmoney had been borrowed partly from the bank and partly from relatives.Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of rickshaws of Bajaj Company having office at Pune and Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 is the local dealer.According to the Complainant, from day of purchase the vehicle began giving trouble due to a manufacturing defect and which was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2 within the warranty period.After running for a very short period the engine of the vehicle used to become hot and after every one hour the engine had to be cooled down.The battery of the vehicle got damaged and the vehicle was giving less mileage than was assured, and many parts were damaged all during the warranty period.The defects were brought to the notice of the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2 twice when the vehicle was taken for servicing.However, no servicing was done except washing the vehicle.Specifically, he had taken his vehicle for servicing on 28-04-2001, but the same could not be done and was kept at the service station to be returned only on /span>12-05-2001.The vehicle was again taken for repair and servicing on 16-10-2001 and was returned only on 19-10-2001.The vehicle was again taken to the service centre on 25-10-2001 where it was kept till on /span>/span>15-11-2001 when Opposite Party No.2 expressed inability to repair the vehicle which is still at the service station till date of filing complaint.Legal notice was sent to both Opposite Parties on 16-11-2001 requesting to replace the vehicle with another model after adjusting excess amount paid for earlier one, or, refund the amount paid towards purchase of vehicle.The legal notice relied on information allegedly given by the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2 who is supposed to have informed the Complainant that he was not trained to service that particular model of which supply had also been stopped by the manufacturers.While Opposite Party No.2 did not respond, Opposite Party No.1 vide reply dated 25-11-2001 informed that the Company has requested Mr. Caculo to ensure that the vehicle is repaired and performs satisfactorily.Complainant sent another letter dated /span>19-12-2001 to both Opposite Parties demanding refund of amount paid, or replacement by model of two stroke engine failing which he would be left with no other alternative but to approach the Consumer Forum.

3.    While opposing the claim, it is the case of Opposite Party No.1 that, after the first servicing on 19-02-2001, the vehicle had not been brought for servicing within the stipulated time/Kms framework for the next three servicing which were due from 19-02-2001 and ranging to 135 days/10,000 kms from purchase day whichever is earlier.The vehicle was next brought in for servicing only on 25-10-2001 i.e. eight months after the first servicing.Thus there was failure to abide by the warranty norms.Also, on account of such failure to service at the stipulated time period, the various defects and damage was done to the vehicle.According to Opposite Party No.1 the warranty period was four months or 6,400/- kms whichever is earlier and the vehicle had completed 7,645 kms in the first nine months.Needless to say that the Opposite Party has denied the allegations that the vehicle, though brought in for servicing was only washed and returned to the Complainant.Thus, it was the neglect of the Complainant which was the cause of the damage.As such the complaint deserved to be dismissed.

4.    /span>The District Forum on going through the complaint, the written statements, affidavits and other documents on record has observed inter aliathat the Complainant has not given any answer in respect of vehicle not being taken for the second, third and fourth servicing.It has further observed that the vehicle had been serviced only after eight months from the first servicing.No satisfactoryanswer has been given by the Complainant to the said issues.The District Forum opined that in the absence of any expert evidence it could not be concluded that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect.In the circumstances, the complaint was dismissed.

5.    /span>We have gone through the entire evidence and find no reason to differ from the well reasoned Judgment of the District Forum.The Complainant has basedhis entire case on some shadowy inside echanicwho has been free with his advice without the responsibility of stating so by way of an affidavit.Such pleadings must be deprecated in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act which are summary in nature and based on affidavit evidence.In the instant case the Complainant has described himself an ducatedunemployed young man.That he is educated is doubtless, as the same can be seen from the notices sent by him and his threat to approach the Consumer Forum.Yet, not only has he taken the court for granted by repeatedly quoting unsubstantiated statements of unknown and unnamed mechanics on vital issues, but he has even chosen to make statements which are patently false and deliberately meant to mislead.At para 8 in his additional affidavit-in-evidence the Complainant states that: he Opposite Party by its reply dated /span>25^th November 2001 informed me that the company has are complaints (sic) from many purchasers.I was further informed that the Opposite Party No.1 has stopped the supply of four stroke vehicle in Goa and that the spare parts of the vehicle are not availableThis is completely contrary to what we find in the reply of the Opposite Party which in no uncertain terms has informed him that they have not stopped manufacturing the said four stroke model, and there is not a whisper of having received any complaints from any other customer.

6.    Being an educated person he ought to have known the procedure to be adopted by the Opposite Party when he brought in his vehicle for the second to fourth servicing on which occasions the Complainant claims the vehicle was only washed. After all the vehicle had been earlier serviced, and according to his claim it had been giving trouble from day number one of purchase.Besides, his case has been that he was never interested in the four stroke model as against the two stroke vehicle.In such circumstances, it is not known why the Complainant did not write complaining to the Opposite Party at a much earlier stage when his vehicle was only being washed instead of being serviced.

7.    /span>This does not wash well with us, and we are inclined to dismiss the appeal with costs.

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Pronounced.

[Sandra Vaz e Correia]

Member

[Caroline Collasso]

Member

22-12-2008

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Pronounced.

/span>[Sandra Vaz e Correia]

Member

/span>[Caroline Collasso]

/span>/span>Member