THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. M.P.MANOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Valsala Sarangadharan, Member ''The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 6/7/2009 of CDRF, Malappuram in OP 139/03 whereby the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000 alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint with costs of Rs.5000/ - to the complainant.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that on 15/10/2001 he purchased a œKinetic Challenger  Motorcycle from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties offered 2 years warranty and assured mileage of 70 Kms per litre. The consideration was paid by a loan arranged through 1st opposite party from Kinetic Finance Ltd. which is an associate business concern of the 1st opposite party. The complainant had to incur Rs.20,000/ - as finance charges. Within 2 weeks of purchase the vehicle showed certain defects and though it was repaired the defects persisted and showed further complaints. The vehicle was taken for repairs to the 1st opposite party several times and the engine was opened and repaired. But the defects could not be rectified. The silencer and engine got abnormally heated and the 1st opposite party was convinced of the defects and informed the complainant that there was manufacturing defect and that there are several other consumers who had purchased the same type of vehicle also have similar complaints. The 1st opposite party assured to take up the matter to the manufacturer but after completion of the free service the 1st opposite party did not provide any support to rectify the defects. The troubles in the vehicle persisted. So he filed complaint before the Forum claiming for refund of the price of the vehicle with Rs.1,00,000/ - as compensation with 18% interest per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle till the date of payment with costs.

(3.) THE 1st opposite party filed version admitting the sale of the vehicle to the complainant. It is denied that the vehicle had defects. It is contended that the 1st opposite party had trained expert mechanics and best service was given to the complainant and job cards would show that the allegations are false and contended that the 1st opposite party is not responsible for any reliefs claimed by the complainant as he is only a service agent of the manufacturer.