KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD Vs. SHASHI DHAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. The complainant-respondent purchased motor bicycle from M/s. Kanha Automobiles on 4.7.2001 for a sum of Rs. 41,970/-. It was manufactured by Kinetic Engineering Private Limited. The motor bicycle had wobbling problem since beginning. It was brought to the notice of M/s. Kanha Automobiles. The complainant visited as many as 10 times within the warranty period for getting the defects removed. Wobbling problem persisted despite all efforts made. The vehicle remained 30 days in the workshop of M/s. Kanha Automobiles. M/s. Kanha Automobiles had not produced job cards. If the defects in the motor bicycle could not be removed despite 10 attempts made by the dealer then it would provide a very strong reason to believe that there was manufacturing defect and manufacturing defect was not removed. It is not only that the petitioner has failed to remove the manufacturing defects but in addition the petitioner also supplied a battery with the vehicle manufactured in September 1999 along with the motor bicycle sold on 4.7.2001 and the battery stopped working in July 2002. It was submitted about battery that batteries were purchased in bulk. But a dealer was not supposed to supply a defective motor bicycle or any other vehicle with nearly two years old battery, in place of new battery. Thus, it was established that there was manufacturing defect in the motor-cycle and old battery was supplied in place of new battery indicating defective battery. If in these circumstances, the District Forum and the State Commission both have given concurrent findings about the manufacturing defect and supply of old battery, Consumer Fora below were justified in awarding refund of Rs. 41,970/- the cost of the vehicle with interest @ 9% per annum along with compensation and cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that rate of interest was on very high side. It may be mentioned that in this matter interest has not been awarded @ 18 or 12% but just @ 9% per annum only. We do not see any reason for any modification is required in the impugned order. Accordingly, we do not find any force in this revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed.