KRISHAN KUMAR vs RAHEJA AUTOMOBILES

THERE is a delay of 143 days in filing Revision Petition No. 985/2000. THERE is no explanation as to why this petition should have been filed after so much delay. It would appear that it was a sort of counterblast to check the revision petition filed by the opposite party No. 1, it being Revision Petition No. 130 of which notice was issued to the petitioner-complainant in Revision Petition No. 985/2000. We would, therefore, dismiss Revision Petition No. 985/2000 on the ground of unexplained delay. Revision Petition No. 130/2000

IN Revision Petition No. 130/2000 it is the first opposite party-dealer which is aggrieved of the order of the District Forum which has been affirmed by the State Commission on appeal filed by it. IN fact appeal was also filed by the first respondent-complainant before the District Forum which also met the same fate. In the complaint grievance of the complainant was that he purchased a Suraj Brand Diesel Motor Cycle from the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 40,632.66 on 28.2.1994. This motor cycle had been manufactured by Suraj Automobiles Private Ltd., opposite party No. 2 and now second respondent before us. It had been concurrently held that the motor cycle from the day one could not perform well and ultimately it was found that the motor cycle was having manufacturing defect. If we see the order of the District Forum, complainant must have gone through lot of harassment and inconvenience by making numerous visits to get the motor cycle repaired from the dealer. Since the defects in the motor cycle could not be removed because of inherent manufacturing defect, complainant wanted refund of the price paid for it or its replacement. Relying on the material on record and the facts of the case, District Forum held that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties being the dealer and the manufacturer and it directed that the motor cycle be replaced by the opposite parties. Both the dealer and the manufacturer were held jointly and severally responsible to comply with the order or face action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant was asked to surrender the salvage (defective motor cycle) to the opposite parties.

Opposite parties did not replace the motor cycle as it would appear that the manufacturer had stopped manufacture of the motor cycles. However, there is nothing on the record to show that ever any attempt was made by any of the opposite parties to comply with the order of the District Forum. The manufacturer did not file any appeal against the impugned order. It was only the dealer and the complainant who did so and as noted above both the appeals were dismissed.

STILL feeling aggrieved, dealer has come before us. It is its contention that since it was only a dealer, it should not have been made liable and it is the manufacturer who should have been directed to replace the motor cycle. Petitioner who was the dealer was not an agent. It had sold the motor cycle independently of the manufacturer i.e. it bought the motor cycle from the manufacturer and sold the same to the complainant on profit. We do not find any error in the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission that both the dealer and manufacturer would be jointly and severally liable. The order of the District Forum is dated 1.7.1998 and in spite of the fact that there was no stay by the State Commission or by this Commission, the order has not been complied with. Complainant told us that he had not been using the motor cycle for the last nine years. But on enquiry he told us that motor cycle had already covered about 21,000 kms. That will show the use of the motor cycle by the complainant. Since it is not possible to replace the motor cycle as its manufacturer had stopped manufacturing the motor cycles, complainant agreed that he may be refunded the price he paid for the same with such amount of interest or compensation as this Commission might think proper. We accordingly direct that instead of complying with the order of the District Forum for replacement of the motor cycle, both the dealer and the manufacturer being the petitioner and second respondent now before us, will jointly and severally pay Rs. 40,632/- to the complainant-1st respondent. The amount shall be paid within one month from the date of the order and in case of default it shall carry interest @ 15% per annum till payment. With this modification of the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission this revision petition is disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.