ANBROS MOTORS P LTD Vs. OM PARKASH SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, M/s. Anbros Motors (P) Ltd. , SCO No.864, NAC, Manimajra (U. T.), M/s. Anbros Motors (P) Ltd. , 176, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, and Kinetic Motors Company Limited, Neeta Towers, Mumbai-Pune Road, Depodi, Pune have filed this appeal against the order dated 15.12.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) in the Complaint Case No.986 of 1999. The District Forum-II has allowed this complaint for a consolidated compensation of Rs.5,000/- including the costs of the case.

(2.) Aggrieved against the impugned order of the District Forum-II, the present appeal has been preferred saying that the compensation awarded by the District Forum-II to the complainant is on the higher side.

(3.) Briefly, the respondent/complainant, Sh. Om Parkash Seth, SCO 153 (1st Floor) Sector 28-D, Chandigarh purchased a Kinetic DX M Blue Colour Scooter with Engine No.953945 and Chassis No.958262 from M/s. Anbros Motors (P) Limited for Rs.33,750/- vide their Invoice No.026 dated 16.5.1999 (Annexure I) and Money Receipt Nos.98068 and No.98069 dated 16.5.1999 for Rs.26,250/- and Rs.7,500/- respectively. The respondent/complainant purchased the said vehicle only because of its being a self start, for his convenience. The averments made in the complaint show that right from the day one of the purchase of scooter, it started giving trouble to the respondent/complainant - one of its purchase and hind wheel drum got so over-heated even after a small run of 4-5 kilometres. The respondent/complainant took the scooter to the appellant/o. P. No.1 on 25.5.1999 and complained about the unsatisfactory performance of the scooter. He left the scooter over-night for its repair and the next day he was told that there is no starting trouble and he should not worry if the scooter gets overheated which will vanish gradually. It was on 25.7.1999 that the respondent/complainant while coming to Panchkula from Chandigarh, the hind wheel of the scooter got suddenly stuck up and jammed on the backside road of the Sector-11, Panchkula. The respondent/complainant loaded the scooter on a Rickshaw and took the same to the workshop of the appellant/o. P. No.1 on 28.5.1999. The mechanic at the workshop after checking and washing some parts with petrol told the respondent/complainant that now the scooter will work, though the respondent/complainant was not satisfied. Therefore, the respondent/complainant lodged a complaint with the appellant/o. P. No.1 in writing (Annexure-2 ). The manager of the appellant/o. P. No.1 informed the respondent/complainant that there was no use of lodging complaint with them and advised him to write to the manufacturer Company. The respondent/complainant consulted a private mechanic, Mr. Harinder who noticed that a brake cane spring (brake lever controlling spring) had not been inserted with the result the brake shoes did not get totally free and the wheel got over-heated. The respondent/complainant got spring inserted at his own cost and thereafter the wheel was not getting too much hot. On the advice of the dealer, appellant/o. P. No.1, the respondent/complainant made a complaint to the manufacturing Company at Pune (O. P. No.3) vide letter dated 28.5.1999 (Annexure-3 ). The Company informed him vide their letter No. KMCL CC 03 JO 6043 - Y dated 7.6.1999 (Annexure-4) that they were advising their Service Engineer to inspect his vehicle thoroughly and would call for his report/comments. The appellant/o. P. No.2 vide its letter dated 21.6.1999 (Annexure-5) asked the respondent/complainant to bring the scooter at their workshop for check up. On 21.6.1999 Mr. Kelkar, the Service Engineer asked the respondent/complainant to leave the scooter with them and collect the same in evening. The scooter was delivered to him only next day with an assurance that it would not give any trouble but the scooter continued to give starting trouble to the respondent/complainant. The manager at the workshop of the appellant/o. P. No.2 told respondent/complainant that the said scooter will get set after 1st and 2nd service.