SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED Vs. MADHABANANDA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -It is the manufacturer who is before us in this petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was the complaint of the complainant-respondent No. 1 that he had purchased an auto-rickshaw from M/s. B.P. Motors Pvt. Ltd., manufactured by the petitioner. M/s. B.P. Motors was opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner was also one of the opposite parties.

(2.) Complaint was that auto-rickshaw which the complainant had taken on hire purchased from B.P. Motors had manufacturing defect. Complainant sought damages and also refund of various amounts incurred by him on repairs of the vehicle. District Forum after writing a judgment of 11 pages held that since oral evidence was required it will be appropriate if the matter is considered by the Civil Court. Complaint was accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to have resort to the Civil Court. Complainant went in appeal to the State Commission which allowed the appeal and directed manufacturer to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards general damages and also Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. Nothing is, however, said in the order of the State Commission as to what was the result of the other reliefs claimed by the complainant. Aggrieved from this order of the State Commission, it is the manufacturer who is now before us.

(3.) An auto-rickshaw manufactured by the petitioner was purchased on hire purchase by the complainant. Vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 5.9.1993. According to the complainant he deposited Rs. 5,000/- with B.P. Motors on 9.6.1993 for purchase of a new diesel auto-rickshaw by the name Bikram. He made further payments of Rs. 42,926/- as margin money and also gave 12 post-dated cheques of Rs. 4,647/- before taking delivery of the vehicle. It was registered on 4.9.1993. Further amounts were also spent by the complainant to make some minor alternations. Right from the day one he found the vehicle was not giving proper service and there were manufacturing defects resulting in monetary loss to the complainant. He had repeatedly to take the vehicle to the B.P. Motors for repairs to remove the defects. There were defects in the engine, gear box, telecrown, body, break systems, etc. Sometimes there were breakdown on the road itself for away from the workshop of B.P. Motors. However, since the vehicle was having major defects these could not be repaired. In utter frustration complainant left the vehicle with the B.P. Motors. Complainant also alleged that it was not a new auto-rickshaw but the load carrier which was used by the B.P. Motors for four or five months for demonstration purposes and thereafter auto-rickshaw body was built on it in the garage and passed on to the complainant as new auto-rickshaw. All these allegations were, however, denied by the opposite parties who alleged that it was the misuse of the vehicle by the complainant. But this could not be denied that the vehicle had been to the workshop repeatedly. It was also the defence that warranty was for three months' period or for a run of 7000 kms. whichever was earlier and during this period complainant had availed of free services and since he defaulted in payment of hire money, a plea of manufacturing defect was advanced to avoid the hire purchase agreement. The documents which the opposite parties brought on record showed that there was a breakdown of the vehicle and that gear adjustment was done, filter replaced and when there was a breakdown at a place called Chandbali servicing was done, front shock absorber was replaced on 3.6.1994. From the record it was apparent that there was a breakdown at Paradeep as well when a new telecrown was fitted though it is claimed by the opposite parties that it was done free of charge.