KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD Vs. RAHUL RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of revision petition Nos. 1575 to 1577/06 which arise out of a common order dated 31.3.2006 of State Commission, Delhi dismissing appeals against the common order dated 10.5.2005 of a District Forum disposing of three complaints. Complaint case No. 239/05/DF-VII was filed by the respondent in revision petition No. 1575/06 while No. 237/5/DF-VII by the respondent in revision petition No. 1576/06. Complaint case No. 235/05/DF-VII was filed by the respondent in revision petition No. 1577/06. The District Forum holding the petitioners/opposite party No. 1 and 2 to be deficient in service and guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice directed them to take back the motor cycles purchased by the respondents and return the cost thereof along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaints. Amount of Rs. 10,000 was also awarded to each of the respondents by way of compensation besides cost.

(2.) Petitioners are manufacturer of Kinetic Challenger motor cycles which were purchased by the respondents through their authorized dealer, opposite party No. 3 in June/September, 2001. Motor cycles carried warranty of two years. It was alleged that the petitioners launched the motor cycles with the claim that it would run 93 kms. per litre in ideal condition and 82 kms. per litre on road which representation was false as the motor cycles ran only 40 kms. per liter. It was further alleged that motor cycles developed manufacturing defects within two months of purchase. Its engine and piston gave abnormal sounds and there was leakage of engine oil. Break shoes too were defective. These defects were not rectified despite several services by the authorized dealer. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice aforesaid complaints were filed seeking refund of price(s) along with interest and compensation of Rs. 2 lakh each. Petitioners contested the complaints by filing joint reply. It was alleged that the respondents took delivery of the motor cycles after having satisfied themselves about its performance; motor cycles were free from any defect; necessary repairs were provided free of charges within the warranty period. It was denied that petitioners are liable to replace the motor cycles and/or refund of the price and pay compensation. On evaluation of evidence the District Forum returned the finding that the motor cycles purchased by respondents had inherent manufacturing defects and the authorized dealer declined to remove them during warranty period; that the assertion of respondents that the motor cycles gave average of 40 kms. per litre was not controverted by the petitioners and the petitioners in order to promote sale of motor cycles had falsely advertised in brochure that the motor cycles would run 82 kms. per litre. In appeal by the petitioners the State Commission affirmed the finding returned by the District Forum on the said counts.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. Vineet Maheshwari for petitioners whom we have heard on admission, is that the respondents had purchased motor cycles in 2001 and have been using them for over four years and the order for refund of price thereof by the Fora below is, therefore, erroneous. Submission is, however, without any merit. Complaint case Nos. 235/05/DF-VII and 237/05/DF-VII were filed within warranty period while complaint case No. 239/05/DF-VII after a delay of few months of the expiry of warranty period. District Forum found that the motor cycles gave per litre mileage less than one-half of what was represented by the petitioners in their brochure. It further found that motor cycles were having some manufacturing defects. Same was the grievance made in the complaints still the petitioners chose to contest them. Not only that they filed appeals and these revisions. In this background, petitioners cannot be heard to say now that as the respondents have been using the motor cycles for over four years the order for refund of price thereof was not called for. Particularly, in view of unfair trade practice adopted by the petitioners in misleading that motor cycles would run 82 kms. per litre the order for refund of price is just and appropriate. Revision petitions, thus, deserve to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. Revision Petition dismissed.