BAJAJ AUTO LTD Vs. BHARATBHAI ISHWARBHAI RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Bajaj Auto Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners ) being aggrieved against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) granting relief to Bharatbhai Ishwarbhai Rajput (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ).

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum, are that he had purchased a Bajaj Auto Rickshaw manufactured by Petitioner No.1 from Petitioner No.2 by taking a loan from the Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd. From the date of the purchase of the Auto rickshaw frequent complaints developed like unsatisfactory brake system, oil leakage in the clutch, problems in the gear box, overheating of machine, imbalance of vehicle etc. which required repairs on at least 36 occasions including 9 times during the first two months of the purchase. These have been clearly spelt out in the job cards also. Despite this the vehicle could not be repaired satisfactorily and the petrol consumption continued to be on the higher side and several defects persisted. Respondent, therefore, had to get some repair done by outside mechanics. The Respondent contended that these were manufacturing defects since they could not be permanently repaired and he suffered both financial loss and mental agony because of his poor economic condition and also because he had to pay back the loan taken from the bank. He, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that he be refunded Rs.49,565/- along with interest @ 18% being the cost of the vehicle plus an amount of Rs.70,000/- for repairing charges of the vehicle.

(3.) Petitioner while admitting that the auto rickshaw was purchased through Petitioner No.2, concluded that whenever it had been brought for repairs these were satisfactorily done and without taking any payment during the warranty period. There were no technical or manufacturing defects in the auto rickshaw. Further, in addition to this auto rickshaw, Respondent also owned other auto rickshaws registered in the name of his brother but of which he was the de facto owner and these were being used for commercial purposes. Therefore, not being a consumer, the complaint of the Respondent is not maintainable under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.