MONTO MOTORS LTD Vs. MOHD SHARIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner was the second opposite party before the District Forum, where the first respondent Mohd. Sharif had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner who are the manufacturers of the motorcycle as well as their dealer M/s. Metro Automobiles, Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the first respondent/complainant Mohd. Sharif had purchased a motorcyle make Cosmo Blaster on 6.2.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 35,940. It was his complaint that the petrol consumption was higher than, as announced average 83 km/ltr. and more importantly that the vehicle was not performing well and he had to take the vehicle for repairs on 16.3.2002, 14.4.2002, 12.11.2002, 10.12.2002, 6.2.2003, 3.3.2003 and 6.3.2003. Since the petitioner and the dealer were not able to remove the alleged manufacturing defects he was constrained to leave the vehicle with the second respondent in March 2003. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and second respondent, the first respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum in March 2003 who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record directed the petitioner and the second respondent to replace the said motorcycle with a new one of the same brand with usual warranty as also to pay Rs. 3,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,500 as cost. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while modifying the relief awarded by the District Forum, directed the petitioner to refund the amount of purchase, i.e., Rs. 35,940 along with cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order this petition has been filed before us.

(3.) After hearing the parties and keeping in view the factum and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Commission, we gave one opportunity to respondent to have the motorcycle repaired. This has been done and it has been checked by the complainant, in person. He drove the vehicle and certified that it is working. Keeping this fact in view we are not in a position to sustain the relief granted by the State Commission of refund of the amount of the cost of motorcycle. However, when we see that the vehicle has been with the second respondent, who is a dealer of the petitioner, repeatedly and more specifically on 6 dates mentioned earlier, thus literally depriving the use of the motorcycle for considerable amount of time, as also the time and energy required to take the vehicle for repairs to a workshop, we are of the view that in these circumstances, complainant would be entitled for some compensation.