VIJAY KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE vs BAJAJ AUTO LTD

-BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainant purchased a scooter for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/- from opposite party No. 2(OP2), which is a dealer of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., OP-1, on 7th October, 92. He found within a short period some defects in the scooter including wobbling therein, which were brought to the notice of the OPs. It is alleged that the wobbling of the back wheel could not be rectified by them, though, the scooter was taken to the workshop various times.

THE complaint has been contested by the OPs, who controverted the allegations of the complainant, and pleaded that after the wobbling was pointed out by the complainant, he did not bring the scooter for repair, though, he was requested to do so. THEy further stated that the complainant was not entitled to any damages. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties earlier on 8.4.94. When we were hearing the case on that date, we found, that it would not be possible to decide the matter, unless the opinion of an independent engineer was obtained regarding the defect. Consequently, we directed the Automobile Association of Upper India, to appoint an Engineer to inspect the scooter and submit the report to the Commission. In persuance of the order, the scooter was inspected by Lt. Col. J.R. Kochhar. The relevant portion of the report reads as follows : 1. ".... The threads of Rear Axle Shaft were found to be completely worn out. The nut for locking the Rear Axle Shaft was found to be loose and held only by the locking pin. There was noticeable wobbling in the Rear Wheel due to the above defect.

There was slight wobbling noticed in the front wheel also. The reason was considered to be defective tyres. The centre groove on the tyres was protruding by approximately one centimeter (1 cm.) which resulted in an uneven pressure on the front tyre resulting in wobbling.

No other fault was noticed in the machine. Recommendations: It is recommended that complete rear axle shaft assembly needs to be replaced. The tyres should also be replaced or repaired. It is advisable that the scooter should not be driven till such time the defects are rectified. Otherwise, it may result in a serious accident." From the above said report it is evident that there was wobbling in the rear wheel and slight wobbling in the front wheel. Lt. Col. Kochhar has advised that the Scooter should not be used till the time, the defects are rectified, otherwise it could result in a serious accident. It is evident from the report that the nut and the rear axle had worn out within a short period of seven months from the date of the purchase of the Scooter. Normally, they should not have worn out in such a short period. Twice i.e. on 7.10.92 and 8. 11.92 the nut had been replaced by the O.P. Thus, there was inherent defect in the scooter which should have been rectified by the OPs. When it was brought to their notice that the nut of the rear axle-shaft had been worn out it was their duty that they should have got examined the defect from some good Engineer and got the same rectified but they failed to do so.

The complainant has alleged that due to wobbling of the vehicle once he and his wife fell down from scooter and suffered injuries. He also stated that on several occasion with great difficulties he saved the accident. There are no grounds to disbelieve him.

AFTER taking into consideration all the circumstances we are of the opinion, that the complainant is entitled to get the defects of the scooter rectified from the OPs. Lt. Col. Kochhar has recommended that the complete rear axle shaft assembly and the tyres should be replaced. We order accordingly. In case some other defects come to light those should also be removed. The warranty of the scooter is extended for one year from the date of the order. In the facts and circumstances of the case we grant Rs. 7500/- as damages to the complainant.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs, and direct the O.P. to replace the aforesaid shaft assembly and tyres, remove other defects and pay Rs. 7,500/- to the complainant within a period of one month, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,500/-. Complaint allowed with costs.