ENFIELD INDIA LTD Vs. N P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the manufacturers are absolved of their warranty obligations for the sales made through Canteen Stores Department? Whether the obligation of conforming to the terms of the warranty, rests primarily on the manufacturer and their authorised dealers in the field These are the two significant questions arising in this appeal.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass and are not in serious dispute. The respondent-consumer who is a retired defence personnel had purchased a Bullet Enfield (Deluxe) motor cycle from appellant No.2 M/s. Manmohan Auto Stores, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh through the Canteen Stores Department, Ambala Cantt. The delivery note was issued to him on 30th of November, 1992 against the Canteen Stores Depart ment purchase order No.5365 dated the 30th of November.1992 of a sum of Rs.31,974.00 for the obligations under the warranty and after-sale service the respondent was to visit the appellant No.3 M/s. Shiva Automobiles at Yamuna Nagar.

(3.) The complainant-respondent's case was that in fact he was delivered a motor cycle other than the one which had been shown to him. This had inherent defect therein and in its very maiden driven from Chandigarh to Yamuna Nagar, it started giving trouble. The Engine would stop every five to ten minutes and it had to be cooled down repeatedly. The respondent, therefore, returned mid-way to appellant No.2 at Chandigarh and pointed out the inherent faults in the vehicle. However, the behaviour of the said appellant for being co-operative was arrogant and rude. The helpless consumer was told that the vehicle would be alright after some driving mileage. Yet again on 12th of December, 1992 the respondent approached the dealer at Chandigarh but they refused to replace the motor cycle or to rectify the fault and referred him to M/s. Shiva Automobiles at Yamuna Nagar. Thereafter the respondent made resort to the latter concern but without any success and again went back to the dealer at Chandigarh on 14th of December, 1992 to reiterate his version. Later on the 26th of December, 1992 the silencerand upper portion of the engine got burnt due to excessive heating. Fuel efficiency also slid down below 16 Kins, per litre. On the consumer's behest, the Canteen Stores Department also wrote a letter to the appellant but he did not remove the defect. Legal notice was also served upon the appellant but no reply was received. Compelled by the inaction of the appellant, the respondent knocked at the door of the District Forum, Jagadhri.