LAWS(NCD)-2004-12-235

MUTHA AGENCIES Vs. NAVIN KUMAR BHAGIRATHI

Decided On December 31, 2004
MUTHA AGENCIES Appellant
V/S
NAVIN KUMAR BHAGIRATHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 13.2.2002 in Complaint No.307/01 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'district Forum' for short) directing the appellant to fit vertical engine in the auto rickshaw of respondent or on failing to do so, provide him with a new auto rickshaw. Besides, compensation of Rs.6,627/- and cost of the complaint Rs.1,000/- was also awarded in favour of the complainant.

(2.) Undisputedly, appellant No.2 is the manufacturer of Mini Door Auto Rickshaw while appellant No.1 was its dealer. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/respondent purchased one Mini Door Auto Rickshaw on 17.5.2000 from the appellant No.1 Mutha Agencies. Warranty was also given by the appellant. It also appears that the price of the said auto rickshaw was paid by the complainant/respondent after obtaining loan from the Bank. It is also not in dispute that horizontal engine has been fitted in the auto rickshaw.

(3.) The averments of the complainant were that the auto-rickshaw started developing defects from the very beginning. The complainant, therefore, at the time of servicing of the auto rickshaw on 8.6.2000 complained about the defects regarding starting problem and noise in the steering. Subsequently, it developed other problems and the matter was reported to the appellant at the time of second servicing on 23.6.2000. Subsequent servicing were also availed of by the complainant. According to the complainant he was alert about the maintenance and followed conditions of warranty. However, as the auto rickshaw continued to develop defects, he approached the Consumer Forum and filed the complaint praying that the engine in the auto rickshaw be fitted vertically. It was also prayed by the complainant that the amount of Rs.6,627/- spent by him in the repairs be also awarded. Complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lac for mental harassment and financial loss caused to him.