MONTO MOTORS LTD. vs Mohd. Sharif

-PETITIONER was the second opposite party before the District Forum, where the first respondent Mohd. Sharif had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner who are the manufacturers of the motorcycle as well as their dealer M/s. Metro Automobiles, Delhi.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the first respondent/complainant Mohd. Sharif had purchased a motorcyle make Cosmo Blaster on 6.2.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 35,940. It was his complaint that the petrol consumption was higher than, as announced average 83 km/ltr. and more importantly that the vehicle was not performing well and he had to take the vehicle for repairs on 16.3.2002, 14.4.2002, 12.11.2002, 10.12.2002, 6.2.2003, 3.3.2003 and 6.3.2003. Since the petitioner and the dealer were not able to remove the alleged manufacturing defects he was constrained to leave the vehicle with the second respondent in March 2003. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and second respondent, the first respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum in March 2003 who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record directed the petitioner and the second respondent to replace the said motorcycle with a new one of the same brand with usual warranty as also to pay Rs. 3,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,500 as cost. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while modifying the relief awarded by the District Forum, directed the petitioner to refund the amount of purchase, i.e., Rs. 35,940 along with cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order this petition has been filed before us. After hearing the parties and keeping in view the factum and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and by this Commission, we gave one opportunity to respondent to have the motorcycle repaired. This has been done and it has been checked by the complainant, in person. He drove the vehicle and certified that it is working. Keeping this fact in view we are not in a position to sustain the relief granted by the State Commission of refund of the amount of the cost of motorcycle. However, when we see that the vehicle has been with the second respondent, who is a dealer of the petitioner, repeatedly and more specifically on 6 dates mentioned earlier, thus literally depriving the use of the motorcycle for considerable amount of time, as also the time and energy required to take the vehicle for repairs to a workshop, we are of the view that in these circumstances, complainant would be entitled for some compensation.

Admittedly, when a person buys a new motorcycle, he does not buy a headache and in normal circumstances it should not have given any trouble. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to produce before us the job cards of different dates to convince us that the motorcycle was brought for ''servicing'' purposes only. It is the case of the petitioner that they would be available with the dealer and they have brought with them only one jobcard dated 12.11.2002. We are not impressed by this argument. Respondent No. 2, where the motorcycle was carried for repairs carried out was none else but the dealer of the petitioner. It was for him to produce any document on which he wanted to rely upon. Non-production of document has to be held against him. In view of above, we are constrained to observe that the motorcycle had to be taken on several different dates to the dealer of the petitioner for repairs and only when the defects were not removed he left the vehicle way back in March 2003 with the dealer of the petitioner/manufacturer of the vehicle. The motorcycle is being given back to the complainant after a lapse of almost 4 years today, i.e., 1.10.2007. We are not inclined to go into this question as to who is responsible for the latter part, i.e., depositing the vehicle with the 2nd respondent. The fact remains that even before depositing of the motorcyle with he dealer of the petitioner, he was being deprived of the continuous use for over a year within purchase of new motorcycle. In view of this, we are of the view that the complainant would be entitled to a compensation which we fix at 15,000 along with cost of Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses, as granted by the State Commission. The complainant shall also be entitled to ''three-free services'' only. The Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms and the order passed by the State Commission stands modified in above terms. R.P. disposed of.