Pramod Kumar Rath vs DEPARTMENT, BAJAJ AUTO LTD. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SERVICE), SERVICE

THIS is an appeal by the complainant whose complaint petition has been dismissed.

COMPLAINANT''s case is, on 19.1.1998 he purchased a Bajaj Scooter on payment of Rs. 21,650/- from respondent No. 2, Rajarani Service Station, Bhubaneswar. The scooter developed major defects within a short span so much so that at the second free servicing it was detected that there was major defect in the scooter and further at the time of the third servicing on 6.4.1998 the scooter needed a repair. But suddenly there was break down when it was again repaired in the service station of respondent No. 2 on 27.5.1998. The opposite parties-manufacturer and the dealer filed joint written version wherein they pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the scooter and so far as deficiency in service is concerned, they pleaded, whenever the scooter was delivered to the authorised service centre-respondent No. 2, the same was repaired.

The District Forum held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant was a consumer, since there was sale transaction in his favour. As regards manufacturing defects, the District Forum relied on the definition of the word "defect" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Consumer Protection Act and further held that the complainant failed to prove by any affidavit in support of his case that there was manufacturing defect in the scooter. It held that the scooter should have been examined by an expert from the side of the complainant. Thus holding, it dismissed the complaint petition.

WE have heard Mr. Dev Das, learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant, and the learned Counsel for respondents perused the impugned order and the materials on record. The letter dated 29.5.1998 of the complainant indicates that he lodged complaint with the Company-respondent No. 1 stating therein that the stand and the silencer of the scooter used to hit each other every time the vehicle passed over a hump having a height of 1. The fueling system of the tank was so placed that every time it needed a funnel to put the 2T making it inconvenient. During the third service, the respondent No. 1 opened the whole engine as he found the kick rachet was posing some trouble for which the complainant had to spend Rs. 132/- towards the cost of the oil seal and packing and thereafter he experienced the engine bearing sound and the mechanic was of the opinion that the engine had to be opened again. The complainant expressed his agony by writing that if this could happen within four months from the date of purchase, then who knows what would happen after the warranty period. The complainant expressed that he was not in a position to ride the vehicle and requested the Company rather to take back the vehicle and refund him the amount paid towards the cost of the vehicle. The manufacturer by their letter dated 8.6.1998 acknowledged receipt of this letter and informed the complainant that the matter was being referred to the dealer-respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 by their dated 29.6.1998 asked the complainant to take the scooter to their workshop during any of the working days. The job card dated 6.4.1998 indicates that 4 items of work were undertaken, at the request of the complainant. In paragraph 2 of the complaint petition the complainant clearly mentioned that when the vehicle had covered 3913 kms. on 6.4.1998 suddenly there came out a sound from the kick rachet for which the engine of the vehicle was opened. To this the respondents did not have a satisfactory reply in their written version. The assertion of the complainant in paragraph 2 is supported by job card dated 4.6.1998 where it has been mentioned, "after second time of engine work there was some sound of bearing (engine). 1st time engine work was due on 7.4.1998 and second time on 27.5.1998. Further other defects were also pointed out, such as front and rear shock absorber were taken out and leakage of the petrol tank. The vehicle was received on 8.6.1998. But it is not known what work was done. On 23.6.1998 the vehicle was reported to have the following defects : "(1) Main bearing sound (Engine). (2) Ring sound. (3) Chain loose and chain cover adjust. (4) Handle gear loose. .................... On going through all these documents it is apparently clear that the vehicle was sold in the month of January, it was not expected that the vehicle if at all was a reliable one would bring out so many defects. WE, therefore, hold that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

Complaint''s, another allegation was that this vehicle because of manufacturing defect did not sell well in the market and, therefore, the manufacturer discontinued this model. To this the opposite parties'' case is that this was not discontinued because of manufacturing defect but because of the market condition. We are unable to make out what is meant by marketing condition for discontinuance of the scooter in the market. Bajaj scooters have proved to be very good vehicles. We accept the case of the opposite parties that this particular model had been withdrawn from the market. Even assuming that the explanation given by the respondents are correct that the same was withdrawn because of the marketing condition, still then it is not desirable that the complainant should be one of the few to suffer having purchased such a defective vehicle. It would have been fair enough for M/s. Bajaj Auto to immediately advise the complainant to take back his money and get back the scooter. Instead they are found to have been contesting on very flimsy and untenable grounds. We have hardly seen any motor vehicle or for that matter a scooter to be developing such defects of the nature pointed out in this case, thereby causing mental agony to the purchaser of the vehicle. We accordingly set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal of the complainant, holding the respondents 1 and 2 i.e., manufacturer and dealer, jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant the price of the scooter, i.e., Rs. 21,650/- along with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum to be calculated from the date of sale, i.e., 9.1.1998 till 25.10.2000, i.e., the date of filing of the appeal. Besides they are to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) towards cost so far as this Commission is concerned. Appeal allowed.