KINETIC ENGINEERING (P) LTD. Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON account of having sold highly defective motorcycle and also having represented as to the average of 92 kms whereas it hardly gave average of 55 kms, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 5.8.2005, directed to replace the motorcycle and to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation towards harassment and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) ALLEGATIONS of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief were that he purchased a Kinetic Motor Cycle model Velocity bearing registration No. DL 3S AH 4928 from appellant No. 2 for Rs. 40,792 on 24.10.2003. He was assured that the motorcycle will give an average of 92 kms for 1 Ltr. Petrol and that it has excellent pick up. In case of any manufacturing problem the vehicle would be replaced by the appellant No. 1. After about one month of its purchase, respondent found that vehicle was heating up even on driving for a few minutes and its pick up was also very low. Even load capacity of the vehicle was low. The clutch plate of the vehicle burnt in January 2004 just after running 5000 kms. When he visited the appellant, clutch plate was changed but thereafter gear while changing started making noise. The gears changed on its own. At times while motorcycle was running the gear suddenly changed to neutral position. On 4.4.2004, the respondent went to appellant No.2 and explained all these problems. Appellant carried out the repairs but the defects were not properly removed, pick up was still low and average did not improve All this happened within a period of five months from the purchase of vehicle. On 26.5.2004 engine was opened by the mechanics of appellant No. 2 when vehicle had run only 1,0000 kms. Normally engine is opened only after the vehicle has run about 50,000 kms. In spite of this there was leakage in the oil. Respondent visited the appellant No. 2 again and again and requested for replacement of the vehicle or refund of his money. He again visited the appellant No. 2 on 18.7.2004 and major repairs were carried out in the engine, gearbox, clutch plate, steering and shockers, etc. payments for the parts replaced was made by the respondent as insisted by appellant No. 2. The respondent had spent about Rs. 5,000 on the repairs of the motorcycle on different dates and it has not yet been fully repaired. Even the pollution level is higher than the prescribed limit. The respondent has lost many working days for going to the appellant No. 2 and he finds it difficult to frequently visit the appellants. Respondent requested that appellant should be directed to replace the vehicle and compensate him by way of Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation, Rs. 5,000 spent by him for repairs, Rs. 20,000 for loss of work and Rs.10,000 as compensation for harassment.