KINETIC ENGINEERING LIMITED Vs. KANAN BALA BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of C.D. Case No. 24 of 2002 before the District Forum, Mayurbhanj at Baripada, have filed this appeal against the complainant as respondent No. 1 citing opposite party No. 1 as respondent No. 2. These appellants have challenged the impugned orders dated 26.8.2002 passed by the District Forum in the C.D. Case holding opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for playing unfair trade practice with the complainant, directed them to refund her the price of the "Kinetic Style" two -wheeler Rs. 27,500 and to take back the Kinetic Style two -wheeler sold to her (the complainant) with 10% interest per annum from the date of sale i.e. from 26.4.2000 till the final payment and also, to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,000 as compensation for bringing harassment and mental agony to her and to pay her litigation cost of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,200 spent by her towards registration of the Kinetic Style and insurance premium. At the same time, the District Forum has directed opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to cease unfair trade practice and not to repeat the same, in view of Section 14(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , in short, the C.P. Act.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 as none other parties appeared and took part in the hearing of the appeal.

(3.) ALLEGING unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the Manufacturer -opposite party No. 2 of "Kinetic Style" and his authorised dealer - opposite party No. 1 through whom she purchased the said vehicle, the complainant had filed the C.D. Case No. 24 of 2002 for replacement of said Kinetic Style and for payment of compensation by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The complainant has alleged that from the time of purchase and during the warranty period, the Kinetic Style purchased by her for Rs. 27,500 gave various types of trouble like low pickup, less mileage, leakage of petrol from fuel tank, as a result of which opposite party No. 1 checked the vehicle and repaired on her complaint. Still the "Kinetic Style" gave problem and as per the advice of opposite party No. 1, the vehicle was tested at Ananda Auto, Baripada and by service engineers and mechanics at different places. During such test, certain parts were also replaced. Opposite party No. 1 had extended the period of warranty as it was going on giving problem after problem. The self -starter of the vehicle did not function ultimately in addition to other defects and the vehicle is lying useless in her house. Therefore, complainant was compelled to file the C.D. Case for the relief mentioned as aforesaid when her requests to opposite parties were not responded to by them at all.