ISHWARLAL AMARNANI Vs. HERO PUCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Ishwarlal Amarnani (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which has passed order in favour of M/s. Hero Puch and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondents').

(2.) Petitioner has contended that he had purchased a Hero Puch EZ two-wheeler from Respondent No. 1 with a warranty of two years which included three free services for the vehicle. Right from the beginning, problems cropped-up which included overflow of fuel, high consumption of petrol and trouble with the steering. The vehicle was attended to by the Respondent during the warranty period but the defects remained. Thereafter, although the carburettor and some other parts of the vehicle including the battery were changed, the problems still persisted. Petitioner, therefore, sent a legal notice to the Respondents to remove the defects and he was advised by a service engineer of the Respondent to change the authorised dealer. The Petitioner, therefore, took the vehicle to Respondent No. 3 who charged him Rs. 1,000 for the cost of liners and labour charges. When the defects persisted, on 1.8.2003 the Petitioner again sent a legal notice to the Respondents which despite keeping the vehicle in their garage for three days could not rectify the defects. Further some parts of the vehicle were removed and replaced without his knowledge which aggravated the problems in running the vehicle. Petitioner, therefore, sent yet another legal notice on 11.10.2003 to the Respondents seeking refund of the cost of the vehicle with interest @ 18%, cost and expenditure incurred on consumption of extra petrol and auto-rickshaw charges for the days when the vehicle was kept by the Respondents for repairs. The Respondents, however, refused to grant him the necessary reliefs sought and therefore, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking the reliefs stated above.

(3.) Respondents have denied the contentions of Petitioner and stated that in the first place the complaint was time-barred in view of the fact that the cause of action arose with the purchase of the vehicle in 2000 and the complaint before the District Forum was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years, in 2003. Respondents further pleaded that during the course of warranty, Petitioner availed of all three services and for which he was not charged. Even after the warranty period was over, as is borne out by the job cards dated 13.3.2003, 1.7.2003, 21.7.2003, 31.7.2003 and 28.8.2003, whatever minor defects were noted the Respondents attended to these promptly and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle which had run 12381 kilometres.