MUKESH AND CO Vs. S M BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Bajaj Auto Limited.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had purchased a 'Bajaj Super' Scooter for a consideration in September 1996, which had allegedly developed crack on the chassis even when it had not run for 50 kms. or so. The matter was taken up with the dealer from whom the scooter was purchased and they offered to replace the chassis of the said scooter as it was within the warranty period but it was not acceptable to the complainant, who was of the view that there is a manufacturing defect in the scooter, hence wanted to replacement by a new scooter. When the issue was not getting resolved, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the respondents to replace the scooter. On an appeal filed by the respondents before the State Commission, it was allowed in part and the State Commission directed the respondents to change the chassis of the scooter as also pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Not satisfied with this relief, the petitioner/complainant had filed this revision petitioner before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length. As per settled position of law that if a part could be replaced or a defect could be removed then replacement cannot be ordered. In this case, no evidence has been led by the complainant to tell that there is a manufacturing defect, hence we are unable to satisfy ourselves about allegation of manufacturing defect in the scooter. The admitted position is that a crack had developed on the chassis and is not disputed that the respondents offered to change the chassis which had developed the crack by replacing it but it was not acceptable to the petitioner/complainant for which he alone is held to be accountable. Since it is the chassis which had cracked and since its replacement is ordered by the State Commission, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, which is upheld. However, we find that the complainant has been inconvenienced though partly on her own attitude, yet in our view, keeping in view the fact that she remained deprived of the use of the scooter, we find that the compensation granted by the State Commission is inadequate, which we increase to Rs. 10,000/-. Rest of the order passed by the State Commission is maintained. The revision petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs. R.P. allowed.