KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. RAHEJA AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 143 days in filing Revision Petition No. 985/2000. There is no explanation as to why this petition should have been filed after so much delay. It would appear that it was a sort of counterblast to check the revision petition filed by the opposite party No. 1, it being Revision Petition No. 130 of which notice was issued to the petitioner-complainant in Revision Petition No. 985/2000. We would, therefore, dismiss Revision Petition No. 985/2000 on the ground of unexplained delay. Revision Petition No. 130/2000

(2.) In Revision Petition No. 130/2000 it is the first opposite party-dealer which is aggrieved of the order of the District Forum which has been affirmed by the State Commission on appeal filed by it. In fact appeal was also filed by the first respondent-complainant before the District Forum which also met the same fate.

(3.) In the complaint grievance of the complainant was that he purchased a Suraj Brand Diesel Motor Cycle from the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 40,632.66 on 28.2.1994. This motor cycle had been manufactured by Suraj Automobiles Private Ltd., opposite party No. 2 and now second respondent before us. It had been concurrently held that the motor cycle from the day one could not perform well and ultimately it was found that the motor cycle was having manufacturing defect. If we see the order of the District Forum, complainant must have gone through lot of harassment and inconvenience by making numerous visits to get the motor cycle repaired from the dealer. Since the defects in the motor cycle could not be removed because of inherent manufacturing defect, complainant wanted refund of the price paid for it or its replacement. Relying on the material on record and the facts of the case, District Forum held that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties being the dealer and the manufacturer and it directed that the motor cycle be replaced by the opposite parties. Both the dealer and the manufacturer were held jointly and severally responsible to comply with the order or face action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant was asked to surrender the salvage (defective motor cycle) to the opposite parties.