KINETIC MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by District Forum, Karnal, whereby while accepting the complaint filed by respondent -complainant, direction has been given to the appellant -opposite parties to replace the vehicle in question with a new one and if it is not possible for it to do so then refund the price of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 38,500 to the complainant along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the order till payment. The above order was to be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.

(2.) THE facts of the case need to be noticed briefly in order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal. The complainant, who is stated to be a handicapped person, had purchased one white gray colour Kinetic -ZX from the appellant on 14.11.2000 for Rs. 38,500 vide invoice No. 1/vs/200 through M/s. Malhotra Agencies, Karnal being the dealer. The appellant was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle. The first service of the vehicle was obtained by the complainant within the stipulated period of 45 days. On that occasion, the opposite party No. 2 retained the other two coupons with it on the representation that it would be for the benefit of the complainant. Soon thereafter the engine of the scooter started giving irritating noise and for that reason the vehicle was taken to workshop of dealer on 2.3.2001. Instead of doing the necessary repairs, the workers of opposite party No. 2 abused him, made fun of him being a handicapped person, insulted him with the result that he had to leave that place. It is further case of the complainant that the pick -up of the said vehicle is not according to the specification given by the opposite party No. 1 which is a manufacturing defect and as the opposite parties had failed to rectify the same, he filed the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one and also claimed Rs. one lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by him at the hands of officials of opposite party No. 2. In addition, Rs. 10,000 were claimed as litigation expenses.

(3.) ON notice, opposite parties put in appearance. In the written reply, they denied the allegations of the complainant that during the first service, other two service coupons were retained by the opposite party No. 2. It was further pleaded by them that the complainant has visited the workshop of opposite party No. 2 on 2.3.2001 at 5 -00 p.m. with the complaint of noise in the engine of the vehicle. As closing time of the workshop is 6 -00 p.m., Harjit Singh, Foreman of the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant to leave the vehicle so it could be checked on the next day, whereas the complainant has insisted that it be checked immediately and further used abusive language against the proprietor of the opposite party No. 2 in the presence of staff and customers. It was further stated by them that three engineers namely Vaveen Succena, Sandip Gambhir and Rajiv Duggal went to the house of the complainant on 26.3.2001 and 20.4.2001 and offered to do the necessary repairs of the vehicle in question but the complainant insisted for change of the vehicle with a new one which request could not be accepted under the rules of the company. Thus they maintained that Kinetic Honda was in working condition except that it needed some minor repairs which have occurred due to normal wear and tear. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record accepted the complaint vide order dated 20.2.2003 and issued the direction as noticed earlier. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant -opposite party No. 1.