JAI NARAYAN Vs. KINETIC MOTOR COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT filed a complaint against the respondents. His grievance was that he purchased a Kinetic Nova 135 Scooter from respondent No. 2, manufactured by respondent No. 1. As per the appellant, its first service was got done on 3.6.2005 when no defect was pointed out. This was purchased on 31.3.2005 for Rs. 37,950. Sale of the scooter in question to the appellant is not in dispute. According to the appellant the scooter had numerous faults. It started giving problems like low pick up, low compression and failure of break system. Its main problem was that it would stop moving suddenly while on run. Main problem with the vehicle was, that it was not fit for driving due to the manufacturing defects in it. He orally, as well as in writing complained to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter he took the scooter to the showroom of the said respondent and made it familiar with the defects. However, it was not taken seriously as it was unable to remove the faults which were incurable. This problem continued for 3 -4 days. Every time he complained to the said respondent. Except for formally checking the vehicle, this respodent did nothing. This resulted in filing of the complaint as according to the appellant he was even threatened by the respondent No. 2, that in case he again came to the workshop he should be ready for dire consequences. Thereafter on a number of occasions, telephonic complaints were also made to respondent No. 2 highlighting the defects.

(2.) ON the other hand stand of respondent No. 1 is that so far it is concerned, before it sends the scooters to the market, the same undergo various vigorous quality control checks. Respondent No. 2 being its dealer is admitted. Its further stand is that at the time of periodical service, no defect was pointed out by the appellant. Similarly respondent No. 2 pleaded that the appellant is a person of quarrelsome nature and would unnecessarily pick up quarrels with its staff. Claim for refund of the cost of the scooter was denied as there were not defects in the scooter. Thus the appellant was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) ON behalf of respondent No. 1 Vivek Saxena filed his affidavit as he had inspected the scooter under the orders of the District Forum below. He found minor defects which were rectified. Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit of one Raju who had examined the scooter and had found no fault therein. Appellant using foul language with the staff and being of quarrelsome nature was also stated by the staff of the respondents.