Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs SUDHA BAVEJA

HEARD. The respondent had purchased a Bajaj Super FE scooter from M/s. Puja Auto Agency, Hanumangarh town on 6.9.1993 with a warranty for 180 days or 6400 km. run against defect, including manufacturing defect, in the scooter. The said scooter was manufactured by Bajaj Auto Ltd. Pune, Maharashtra, the present appellant. The grievance of the respondent was that when the scooter was put to use its shockers failed and it did not give the average of consumption of petrol/oil as per se presentation made by the sellers. Though the scooter was got repaired by her from appellant''s local dealer yet the defect could not be satisfactorily removed. She thus alleged manufacturing defect in the goods and filed her complaint before the Forum at Hanumangarh.

THE appellant and their dealer at Hanumangarh opposed the complaint on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the scooter and whatever and whenever the complainant had complained of any problem in the scooter including the starting problem, that was timely removed by them. THEir further case was that free services were extended by them to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the guarantee/warranty card. The Forum, however, held that the oft-repeated complaint of the complainant was that the scooter was giving noise and that fact was also confirmed by the Service Engineer, Sh. Bhatia. The Forum was further of the opinion that there was manufacturing defect in the scooter. It, therefore, directed the appellant to replace the scooter with a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. Hence this appeal by the manufacturer.

It was vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no expert evidence in the case to prove any manufacturing defect in the scooter. It was also submitted that the main grievances of the complainant in respect to the goods sold by them to her were regarding starting problem, excess consumption of petrol/oil and loose shockers. The learned Counsel submitted that the shockers were timely changed and other problems and defects in the scooter were also removed. In this behalf the learned Counsel referred to the satisfaction voucher and also entries made in the job card pertaining to the repairs of the scooter by them.

AFTER having given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the appellant before us and on going through the material available on the record of the Forum we are of the opinion that the appellant had certainly given free services to the complainant in respect to the starting problems and complaints against the shockers. In the satisfaction certificate the complainant appears to have accepted that the rear shockers had been replaced free of cost/charges and the average of consumption of oil/petrol was also increased to 60 km. per litre. In the free service card the complaints noted related to shocker change, starting problem and improvement of average. It is thus clear that the appellant tried to redress the grievance of the complainant-respondent. But still the complaint of the complainant against the smooth running of the vehicle has continued. By her letter dated 22.4.1994 she had again complained to the appellant with regard to the defect in the scooter. Her main grievance was that engine was giving noise and that the average had come down to 52 to 53 km. per litre. It appears that the appellant had asked her to permit them to open the engine of the scooter in order to remove her complaint but that was not allowed. After having taken into account all the fact and circumstances of the case and also looking to the fact that there was no technical report of any expert as per provisions contained in Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act, 1986, it cannot be held that there was any manufacturing defect in the scooter. But at the same time it cannot be ruled out that the grievance of the complainant respondent regarding the engine giving noise and starting problems had continued even after the repairs of the defects by the appellants. Under such circumstances we accept the finding of the Forum to the effect that the appellant had rendered deficient services to the complainant.

IN view of the above the impugned order is modified to this extent that instead of replacing the scooter the appellant would pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to the complainant respondent on account of the defects in the scooter so that she may get the same removed from a person of her choice. This payment would be made to her within a period of two months from today through demand draft sent to her at her postal address, as given in the complaint failing which the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed with cost at Rs. 1,500/-. Appeal disposed of.