SCOOTER INDIA LIMITED Vs. MANJULABEN KIRITBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by Scooter India Limited-petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch (for short the District Forum ) challenging the Final Order dated 25.1.2006 in Appeal No. 1278 of 2005 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short the State Commission ) thereby dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Order passed by the District Forum.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present Complaint are: Complainant/respondent had purchased a Vikram Delivery Van, i.e., Three Wheeler Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-16U-4025 on 31.8.2003 for Rs. 1,50,000 from the authorized dealer, viz., M/s. Dharati Vehicles-respondent No. 3 herein, after taking loan from M/s. Chola Mangalam. It was stated in the Complaint that the said vehicle started giving problems within 3 months of its purchase as there were manufacturing defects in it. That the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner but the defects were not removed even after initial repairs. That as per instructions of the petitioner, the said vehicle was kept for further investigation at their showroom from 15.1.2004 to 28.1.2004 but in spite of that also, the problems in the vehicle persisted and Rs. 15,000 were charged for the said repairs though the vehicle was under warranty. Thus, being aggrieved, complainant/respondent filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) On being served, petitioner filed its Written Statement dated 11.6.2004 stating that the complainant had purchased the tempo at the cost of Rs. 1,50,000 wherein a discount of Rs. 2,000 was given to him and an amount of Rs. 1,48,000 was recovered from the complainant. It was stated that the said tempo was purchased on 31.8.2003 and upto 15.1.2004, no defects were reported by the complainant to the petitioner. That during the period from 15.1.2004 to 28.1.2004, the vehicle was kept at their showroom for investigation by their expert technician and, on investigation, it was found that the oil was not put in the engine of the vehicle and the vehicle was being run in a defective manner. Though the capacity of the tempo was 1250 Kilograms but the goods loaded in it were beyond its capacity, which led to the occurrence of the repeated faults. That as per Rules of the Company, clutch plates, silencer, average companion and baby chakkar, etc. cannot be replaced without payment even during warranty period and, therefore, Rs. 15,000 were charged from the complainant for the said repairs. Thus, denying the allegations made in the Complaint, petitioner prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.