TIRUPATI MOTORS vs KANAN KUMARI DASH

THIS is an appeal filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Keonjhar in Complaint Case No. 32/02. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the respondent/complainant had purchased a Hero Puch E2 vehicle from the appellant/O.P. No. 1 by paying the stipulated money of Rs. 26,700/- on 25.1.2001 and Rs. 1,000/- towards registration and Rs. 473/- for fittings etc. That within a few days of purchase i.e., within the warranty period, the vehicle started giving various problems especially of low mileage. That the respondent/complainant promotely brought this fact to the notice of the appellant/O.P. No. 1, who inspite of carrying out number of repairs failed to rectify the main problem of low mileage, but went on assuring the respondent/complainant that the defects would be gradually cured. That being fed up with the poor performance on her newly purchased vehicle and with the continuous false assurance, the respondent/complainant had no other option except to seek the redressal before the learned District Forum and as such filed a C.D. Case No. 32 of 2002 before the said Forum.

THE District Forum on the basis of the materials on record and the reasons reflected in its impugned order, took a view that the deficiencies attributed to appellant/O.P. No. 1, can he said to have been established. With the result, it has passed the impugned order against appellant/O.P. directing replacement of the Old Hero Puch E2 by a new one or returned with the amount of Rs. 26,700/- with interest without any compensation. Hence the instance appeal filed by the appellant and others. In this appeal, the short point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the learned District Forum can be found fault with.

We have also examined the materials on record carefully and have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made on either side too.

THE facts giving rise to the appeal lie within a narrow compass. Admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 25.1.2001 on full and final payment. It started giving inherent trouble within the warranty period of one year and the respondent/complainant has promptly lodged against the appellant/O.P. No. 1 (dealer). We are unable to understand why the dealer in its turn did not draw the attention of the manufacturer about the inherent and manufacturing defects of the vehicle. Therefore, we hold that the appellant (O.P. No. 3) are deficient for their service towards the respondent/complainant.

ON the basis of uncontroverted allegation made in the complaint petition of the complainant, the District Forum rightly accepted the case though the complainant had paid the entire money for the purchase of the said vehicle, but he was not given delivery of a defect free vehicle in question. Considering all materials the District Forum has directed for replacement of the vehicle with a new one on account of inherent manufacturing defects on production of the old vehicle before the appellant (O.P. No. 1) or return of the amount with 10% interest on the deposits i.e., purchase price of the vehicle of Rs. 26,700/- from the date of payment without compensation. There is no infirmity of the order impugned. The appeal is dismissed. The order be complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed.