Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs A.V.K. NAIR

- THIS appeal by the opp. party is directed against the order dated 25-6-1993 passed by the District Forum (Urban), Bangalore, in Complaint No. 1309/ 91 directing the opp. party to refund to the complainant the price of the vehicle in question sold to the complainant with interest thereon.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows: THE complainant purchased a Kawasaki Bajaj bike KB RTZ 100 from the authorised dealer of the opp. party on 22-11-1990. THE complainant averred that even at the time of delivery of the vehicle from the show room itself the vehicle showed up some problems like those with the gears, leakage of oil of from the engine, shaking of the wheel drum, erratic functioning of the horn etc. THE complainant brought these facts to the notice of the opp. party by his complaints dated 19.12.1990 and 16.3.1991. THE opp. party wrote the complainant on 31.12.1990 asking him to meet the service engineer. Even though the service engineer effected certain repairs but the vehicle persisted to give the trouble. THE complainant in the affidavit had averred that even on 22.1.1993 there was leakage of oil from the engine, slipping of gear, sound coming from the engine, wobbling of the rear wheel etc. He has further averred that the vehicle was giving low mileage and the rear portion of the vehicle was broken. As the authorised dealer did not attend to these grievances the complainant filed the complaint seeking replacement of the vehicle. The opp. party did neither appear nor filed its version.

During enquiry the complainant filed his affidavit and produced the copies of the complaints made by him to the opp. party regarding the defects in the vehicle and the opp. party''s letter asking him to approach the service engineer of the area. The complainant also produced certain bills to show how the problem persisted with the vehicle.

THE District Forum appreciating this material placed on record by the parties, held that vehicle did suffer from the manufacturing defect and in that view directed the opp. party to refund to the complainant the price of the vehicle collected from him with interest thereon. We have called for the records and received . We have also heard the Learned Counsel for the. appellant and the respondent. We have perused the records placed on record.

THE complainant has averred in his complaint as to how the vehicle from the date of its purchase itself started giving trouble. He has also given the affidavit in support of these averments that the vehicle even on 22.1.1993 when he filed the affidavit was having several problems; there was leakage of the oil from the engine; slipping of gear; sound coming from the engine; wobbling of the rear wheel etc. These defects show a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The opp. party did neither appear nor challenge the averments in the evidence of the complainant. The District Forum having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, held that the vehicle was having a manufacturing defect and in that view directed the opp. party to refund the price of the vehicle collected from the complainant with interest thereon.

WE find absolutely no grounds to interfere in this finding recorded by the District Forum. However, we find that the District Forum while directing the opp. party to refund the price of the vehicle to the complainant has not directed the complainant to handover the said vehicle to the opp. party on receipt of refund of the price of the vehicle from the opp. party. WE hereby direct the complainant/ respondent to handover the said vehicle to the opp. party on receipt of the refund from the opp. party, as directed by the District Forum.

WITH these observations, we hold and record that this appeal has no merits and consequently it is dismissed. The appellant/opp. party shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the complainant/respondent towards costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.