KINETIC MOTOR CO. LTD. vs SHIV CHARAN NEGI

RESPONDENT purchased a two-wheeler scooter manufactured by the appellant on 18.12.2005. Right from day one it gave problem with the kick/self start system and the vehicle stopped all of sudden while moving on the road and its handle tilted to one side. Since the defects could not be rectified by the appellant, the respondent filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum for replacement of the vehicle or refund of cost of the vehicle.

BY way of interim order dated 14.9.2006, the District Forum directed the appellant to rectify the defects pointed out by the respondent within a week. However, the appellant could not rectify within the given time but collected the vehicle for repair on 29.9.2006 and returned the same to the respondent after so-called repair on 30.9.2006. Since the defects continued as the appellant could not rectify the defects, the District Forum vide order dated 5.10.2006 directed the appellant to refund the cost of the vehicle and also to pay Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

The first grievance of the appellant is that District Forum has jumped to the conclusion that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defects. The defects pointed out by the respondent were rectified as the vehicle in question was inspected and repaired on 29.9.2006 and the same was collected by the respondent on 30.9.2006 showing that it was set right and was OK.

THE learned Counsel contended that Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such a extended period as may be granted by the District Forum but the District Forum did not obtain the expert opinion in this regard. Above contention does not find favour with us. Sub-section (2) also provides that District Forum on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. The word ''defect'' has been defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. Section 14 of the Act empowers the District Forum to either direct the opposite party to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question or to replace the goods with new goods or similar description which shall be free from any defect or to return the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant and also to pay such an amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party including the mental, physical injury of discomfort suffered by the consumer.

ON the basis of aforesaid facts, in our view, the District Forum rightly drew inference on the basis of material produced by the parties. The purpose of obtaining analysis/test of the goods as contemplated by Section 13 is in respect of those goods which cannot be branded as defective on the basis of material produced by the complainant. A consumer purchases new article to save himself from the inconvenience of second hand article as in the modern day busy life it is not possible for a person to take the vehicle time and again for repairing for removing one or the other defect every second day and that too in a brand new vehicle. The time and expense and mental agony it involves is unimaginable and in such a situation manufacturer has to compensate the consumer adquately. It was with a view to inculcate the sense of discipline in the approach of the manufacturers of vehicle and other goods that a very stern standard of quality, purity was described. The object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders selling sub-standard or defective goods or against the providers of service who are not providing service and not maintaining the standard of service.

WE do not find any infirmity in the impugned order nor do we feel inclined to interfere with the wisdom of District Forum for refund of cost of the vehicle. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. This order shall be complied with within one month of receipt.

BANK Guarantee/FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room.

Copy be sent to Presidents of all the District Fora. Appeal dismissed.