PRADEEP Vs. KUSHAL AUTO PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Amravati dated 19.4.1994 passed in complaint No.102/93. A complaint was made by Pradeep Chiddarwar alleging defective manufacture of scooter by opposite party. The complaint alleged in this complaint that the scooter purchased by him manufactured by opposite party No.2 was defective inasmuch as at the time of servicing its colour was completely removed. The complainant's claim was opposed by opposite party No.1, local dealer, on the ground that the colour of petrol tank was peeled of it is being was rectified by replacing petrol tank with a new one. Thus, it is submitted by opposite party that it is not a manufacturing defect. However, by the impugned order the District Forum directed opposite party No.1 to replace the petrol tank of Bajaj scooter purchased by complainant free of cost.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Paranjpe, Advocate for appellant and Mr. Kalantri, Advocate for the respondents. It is argued by Mr. Paranjpe, the learned Advocate appearing for appellant stated that as there was a manufacturing defect in the scooter manufactured by M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited, the old scooter should have been replaced by new scooter and not by merely replacing the petrol tank. The argument of Mr. Paranjpe is directed against M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. who is respondent No.2 in this appeal.

(3.) Notices from this Commission to appear for hearing dated 23.9.1994 were issued to the respondents. The notices were served on both the respondents viz. M/s Kushal Auto Ltd. and M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The postal acknowledgements snowing the receipt of notices from this Commission are placed on record. However, M/s. Kushal Auto Ltd. appeared through Mr. Kalantri, Advocate, but none appeared for respondent No.2, M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. , Pune. We find that the impugned order directed the respondent No. l, local dealer to replace the petrol tank of the Bajaj scooter purchased by complainant. However, it is surprising that when the District Forum has reached the finding that there was manufacturing defect in the scooter, the manufacturer has not been held accountable for the manufacturing defect. The responsibility of replacement of the petrol tank is foisted on respondent No. l who is a local dealer. We find that the District Forum has not properly considered the allegations of complainant and therefore instead of considering the demand of complainant to get the replacement of scooter, ordered the replacement of petrol tank only by the local dealer.