SCOOTERS INDIA LTD Vs. PRASENJIT HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2002 passed in C. C. No. under which the Forum allowed the complaint on contest against all the O. Ps. and directed them to replace the defective three-wheeler with a new one of similar description that would be free from defect within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which, the O. Ps. would be liable, either separately or jointly, to return the consideration money taken from the complainant within a period of 60 days to be computed from the date following the date of expiry of the above 60 days in the case of replacement of the thing, otherwise the O. Ps. would be liable to pay interest @ 9% p. a. on the said consideration money for the period of default, if any. The Forum did not allow the prayer for compensation as made by the complainant. Being aggrieved by this order the O. Ps. have preferred the present appeal challenging that order as erroneous, illegal and unsustainable.

(2.) The case of the complainant was that he being an unemployed youth holding a route permit of auto rickshaw purchased one Diesel Vikram (Three-wheeler's model and colour 410d/auto/yellow and Black) from the dealer, the O. P. No.1-M/s. Manik Motors as per Invoice for Rs.1,01,000/- (payment by cash of Rs.21,000/- and by Bank Draft Rs.80,000/- taken as loan from the Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank, Aliporeduar ). But within 15 days from the date of purchase the Engine Plate of the auto rickshaw broke down, mobile oil leaked with excess consumption and the engine got heated and problem over starting of the vehicle developed. The complainant at once informed the O. P. No.1 over telephone of such problem arising in the vehicle but O. P. No.1 did not take any step. Such negligence on the part of the O. P. constituted deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice particularly when the complainant suffered financial loss and various hazards as a result. Hence he brought this complaint before the Consumer Forum praying for an order for refund of consideration money with interest and compensation for a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/-.

(3.) The Forum after hearing both and considering the materials on record adduced by both the sides came to the conclusion that there had been deficiency in service on the part of the O. Ps. and, therefore, they were liable to either replace the auto rickshaw in dispute by a new and defect free one or, in the alternative, they would refund the consideration money which they took from the complainant as price of the auto rickshaw in dispute to the complainant.