BAJAJ AUTO LTD Vs. ANURAG KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which lead the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under :

(2.) The complainant had purchased a motor cycle from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 40,854/-. Since the day of its purchase, it developed numerous defects which the mechanic of the respondent could not rectify. Dissatisfied with the poor performance of the vehicle and the failure of the respondent to rectify the defects, the complainant requested the respondent to replace the defective vehicle. Since his request was not heeded to, he had no option but to approach the District Forum praying for refund of the price of the motor cycle which amounts to Rs. 40,845/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. or, in the alternative, the respondent be directed to replace the vehicle with a new one with a one year fresh warranty. On notice being issued, the respondent filed its written version wherein he had denied the allegation that the vehicle was defective and further asserted that whenever the respondent complained of any defect, the same was duly rectified by the respondent. The District Forum after taking note of all the pleas of the parties and noticing the defects experienced by complainant soon after the purchase of the motor cycle, had ordered replacement of the vehicle with a fresh warranty period of one year with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. In appeal the State Commission, after discussing the facts and in particular the fact that throughout the period of two years one or the other snag had been developing and on each occasion when the vehicle was taken to the petitioners some part had to be replaced, upheld the order of the District Forum.

(3.) We find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order or in the order of the District Forum. A person purchases a new vehicle only for his convenience and not to suffer the inconvenience of repeated visits to the workshop and frequent deprivation of the use of the vehicle due to such snags. Before us, the respondent pointed out that the vehicle has not been in use ever since it came back last time from the workshop of the petitioner and is lying at the disposal of the petitioner getting rusted. In the light of these facts we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As a result of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.