P R J ENTERPRISES Vs. RAJPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 25.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.307/2001 - entitled Shri Rajpal Singh V/s. P. R. J. Enterprises.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Rajpal Singh had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Sec.12 of the Act averring therein that he had purchased one CNG Auto, bearing Registration No.6394, make Bajaj Auto-Model-2000 on 30.10.2000 from the appellant. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that the respondent on 14.2.2001 had approached the workshop of the appellant for service purposes and when on 15.2.2001 he went to collect the said vehicle after service from the workshop of the appellant, he was asked to pay the bill. As per the case of the respondent during first six months of the purchase the workshop of the appellant was under obligation to render free service. It was stated that despite protest by the respondent, the workshop of the appellant refused to deliver the vehicle and the respondent was forced to pay a sum of Rs.1,750/- as service charges and another sum of Rs.1,152/- as cost of the parts replaced. The grievance of the respondent, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in nut-shell, was that no service charges and no charges for the replacement of the parts should have been charged from him by the appellant within the warranty period. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it was prayed that the entire amount charged by the workshop of the appellant be directed to be refunded together with compensation and litigation expenses.

(3.) The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the respondent had not approached the District Forum with clean hands. On merits it was stated that the CNG Auto in question was purchased by the respondent on 5.10.2000 and the warranty period in respect of that vehicle had expired on 5.2.2001 and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to give free service to the respondent.