(1.) This is petitioner's appeal against the order of the Forum dismissing the complaint petition.
(2.) The petitioner approached the Forum praying inter-alia for refund of the price of the Motor Cycle or for replacement thereof together with appropriate compensation. On 16.9.1998, he purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle for a sum of Rs.39,670/- against a receipt duly granted by OP-2, the local dealer of OP-1. He alleges that ever since the purchase the said Motor Cycle was giving trouble and it was emanating excessive smoke because of certain manufacturing defects. The said Motor Cycle was sent to the dealer for rectification, for the first time on 13.10.1998. The said Motor Cycle was covered under a warranty for a period of one year against any defect. The dealer tried to rectify the problem but failed. Thereafter, the Motor Cycle was sent to the dealer on several other occasions for rectification of the defects but the defects persisted. The dealer changed the Cyclinder, Piston Ring and Sealvalve Steam etc. But no improvement in the matter of emission of excessive smoke could be noticed. The petitioner approached the dealer for replacing the said Motor Cycle. But they declined to do so. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Forum. According to the petitioner the Motor Cycle is lying at the garage of the dealer on and from 6.7.2000.
(3.) The case was contested by the O. Ps. by filing a joint written statement wherein it has been denied that the Motor Cycle had any manufacturing defect. According to the O. Ps. the petitioner allowed non-expert mechanics for rectification of the troubles which allegedly occurred and this resulted in the present condition of the Motor Cycle. They claimed that in order to keep up the goodwill of the Company they have duly attended to the complaints of the petitioner and set right the defects to the complete satisfaction of the petitioner and the petitioner obtained delivery of possession of the Motor Cycle on each and every occasion after being satisfied with its performance. They state further that on the request of the petitioner they replaced the Cyclinder, Piston Ring, Sealvalve Steam of the Motor Cycle on 17.5.1999 and after making the trial run the petitioner took delivery of the Motor Cycle on being fully satisfied about its performance. According to them, the Motor Bike emitted smoke gas because of use of adulterated fuel. The Motor Bike is lying at their workshop on the refusal of the petitioner to take it back.