ARAWALI AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD. vs JAGDISH PRASAD SAINI

HEARD.

THE simple dispute in this case is with regard to the sale of defective scooter by the appellant to the respondent complainant. After the purchase of the scooter by the respondent complainant from the appellant on 22.2.1995, it was noticed by him and his mechanic on 27.2.1995 that the chamber of the engine was having a crack. THE respondent contacted the appellant at their showroom on that day but the appellant asked him to come on 3.3.1995. When the respondent contacted the appellant at their showroom on 3.3.1995, he was asked to come on 6.3.1995. When the respondent again contacted the appellant he was told that the concerned officer was not at the showroom. THEn on 13.3.1995 the appellant''s servant asked the respondent to contact the appellant at their showroom on 14.3.1995. On 14.3.1995 when the respondent asked for replacement of the scooter, the appellant totally declined to replace the goods to the respondent. On a complaint having been filed by the respondent before it, the Forum found the grievances of the appellant (sic) quite genuine and established on record. The Forum, therefore, directed the appellant to replace the goods with a new scooter and also to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- as cost of litigation to him. Aggrieved by such order of the Forum made in Complaint Case No. 121/1995, the appellant has filed this appeal.

It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order of replacement of the scooter itself appears to have been given by the Forum on the basis of the misunderstanding or mistake of fact that the chassis of the scooter was having a crack, although the respondent himself had complained of crack in the chamber of the engine. This argument appears to be correct. In his complaint the complainant appears to have complained of crack in the chamber and not in the chassis of the scooter. In support of his version the respondent had also filed a report of a mechanic from Lakshman Scooters dated 23.3.1995 and in such report also the mechanic had reported that the chamber of the engine of the scooter in question was having a crack in it.

AT the hearing we enquired of the learned Counsel for the appellant as to what could be the expenditure in the replacement of the chamber. Whereas the learned Counsel for the appellant reported that it may at the cost at Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 2,500/- the learned Counsel for the respondent asserted that the chamber is an integral part of the engine. We are of the opinion that the chamber is not an integral part of the engine itself. Chamber is a container of the engine. Since the mechanic did not report about any defect in the engine and there is also no report of any other expert under Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act, 1986, we are of the opinion that the scooter sold by the appellant to the respondent required replacement of the cracked chamber only. Looking to the fact that the transaction of sale and purchase between the parties had taken place as far back as in the year 1995 and since then the scooter has been in the possession and use of the respondent we are of the opinion that award of a consolidated amount of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant to the respondent should meet the ends of justice which should finally settle down the dispute between them. We order accordingly.

IN view of the above the impugned order is modified to the extent and in the manner that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within a period of one month from today failing which the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Appeal disposed of.