RAM KUMAR Vs. KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. S. K. Mahajan, Advocate and carefully perusing the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'district Forum'), impugned in this appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit and it deserves to be dismissed in limine. The reasons for the aforesaid view are as under :

(2.) The appellant purchased a motor cycle bearing chassis No.22008762, Engine No.22008880 manufactured by Kinetic Engineering Limited, Chinchwad, Pune and financed by Kinetic Lease and Finance Ltd. It developed some problems and was taken to the workshop of O. P. No.3-Chandigarh Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. where it was duly attended and defects were removed as would appear from the affidavit of Shri Vineet Sharma, Managing Director, CMPL (P.) Ltd. On subsequent occasions also when-ever the vehicle was taken, it was repaired to the satisfaction of the appellant and job cards prepared in respect of the repairs duly noted the fact of satisfaction of the appellant.

(3.) The District Forum has held that the appellant has failed to prove by sufficient evidence on record that the vehicle in question had manufacturing defect and led no evidence of any expert to prove the same. Apart from it, there was no sufficient evidence led by the appellant to prove the extension of period of warranty by another six months vide Annexure C-2. The respondents have clearly and categorically denied the extension of warranty by a period of six months and reference may be made in this regard to the affidavit of Shri Vineet Sharma. Faced with such a situation, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and his Counsel could not lead evidence of an expert before the District Forum for which another opportunity be afforded to them. We are, however, of the considered opinion that it was the duty of the appellant to lead proper and sufficient evidence before the District Forum while proving the averments made in the complaint regarding the vehicle in question suffering from manufacturing defect.