MANAGER, M/S. BADKUL BROTHERS-/ vs RAJESH KUMAR SEN

THIS is an appeal by the non-applicant who is a dealer of T.V.S. Mopeds, The respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the Forum claiming replacement of a T.V.S. Champ Moped on the ground that the Moped was defective. The non-applicant appellant filed a reply before the Forum that the vehicle concerned was bought under a Finance Scheme by the complainant on 11.1.1990 and the one year guarantee of the Moped expired on 10.1.1991. According to the non-applicant/appellant on 23.8.1991 the vehicle was brought by the complainant in the non-applicant/appellant''s show room. Repairs were effected as per the order of the complainant and the defective parts were also changed. It was also contended that the complainant did not turn up on 23.8.91 when the vehicle was repaired, but came after a month and three days. After taking trial of the vehicle and being satisfied the complainant paid the bill for repairs and signed the job card certifying satisfaction about the fitness of the vehicle on 27.9.1991 and took away the vehicle. It was also contended that the complainant not being the purchaser of the vehicle had no right to maintain the action. After taking evidence, the District Forum by its order 7th July, 1992 accepted the complaint and directed replacement by a new Moped, Costs of the complaint were also awarded to the complainant. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the non- applicant dealer of the Mopeds.

IN the appeal also the question of the complainant being not the purchaser of the vehicle was raised. IN our opinion, the contention was rightly rejected by the Forum because the complainant was the son of the person in whose name the vehicle was sold and the owner had submitted an affidavit to the effect that he had purchased the vehicle for his son, the complainant who is using the same. The complainant therefore is a beneficiary using the vehicle with the approval of the purchaser and will fall under the definition of ''Consumer''. On merits it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the guarantee period was over and there is no liability to replace the vehicle at any rate. The complainant himself in his statement has stated that last service was effected on 27.9.1990. A bill of Rs. 272/- was sent to him by the non-applicant/ appellant. Anotherbill of 30th March, l990 has also been produced by the complainant. A total of Rs. 446/- has been spent on the repair of the vehicle by the complainant. The only complaint which came out in examination in chief was that the servicing was not properly done and excessive charges were levied, the parts for the replacement of which money was charged were not replaced and the vehicle was not in a running condition. Neither in the complaint nor in the statement of the complainant any details have been given about the defect of the vehicle or the deficiency in service. In the crossexamination the complainant has admitted to have paid the amount of bills and having signed the job card certifying satisfaction. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

The reasoning of the District Forum is curious. It has been inferred from the fact that parts of the value of Rs. 446/- were to be replaced -that the Moped was defective. Mechanical defects may crop-up in -a vehicle and it may not run for several reasons. It has not been alleged that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or that the vehicle was such that it can be said to be totally useless. The vehicle has admittedly run from 11.1.90 to 27.9.91 though, it needed some repairs. It cannot therefore be said that the vehicle was totally useless. It is not that for every defect you can hold the manufacturer or the dealer responsible. In this case, the manufacturer is not at all impleaded. The complaint has been filed only against a dealer. Dealer''s duty is to sell the vehicle as it reaches him from the manufacturer. The guarantee is given by the Manufacturer. If, a dealer takes all precautions to comply with the terms of the guarantee and it is not proved that the defects developed due to something done or not done by the dealer, the dealer cannot be held responsible. It is really shocking that the District Forum ordered replacement of the vehicle holding it to be utterly useless when the dealer could not have been held responsible for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. We are also not satisfied that on the evidence on record any detect in the vehicle has been proved. The order of the District Forum cannot therefore be sustained. It is hereby set-aside. The complaint is stands dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs. Complaint Dismissed.