L M L LIMITED Vs. B P TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the material facts of the case are that Mr. B. P. Tyagi, complainant, purchased a Scooter Model Select from M/s. Mangalam Agencies, Authorised Dealer of M/s. L. M. L. Ltd. on 9.11.1993 in the name of his wife Mrs. Kamal Tyagi. The Scooter started giving trouble on the third day of its purchase. The complainant took the scooter to the dealer on a number of occasions but the main problem of slipping of second and third/4th gear was not rectified. Even when it was rectified, the rectification was temporary and the problem appeared again after the scooter had been used for a brief period of 2 / 3 days. The complainant approached District Forum by filing a complaint dated 8.2.1994. The opposite parties failed to appear. The District Forum took into consideration the complainant's affidavit which had not been controverted and held that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect and directed the opposite parties to replace the scooter with a new one free from defects and in the alternative, to refund the price of the scooter paid by the complainant together with 18% interest thereon from the date of purchase till payment besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal. The plea of the appellants is that the complainant as distinguished from the purchaser of the scooter, namely Smt. Kamal Tyagi, has no locus standi to file the complaint. It has further been stated that every time the scooter was brought to the dealer's workshop, it was attended to and necessary adjustments made and the complainant was completely satisfied. On receipt of a copy of the complaint dated 20th January, 1994, instituted before the District Forum, the manufacturer M/s. L. M. L. Ltd. sent its service engineer to the residence of the complainant, but the complainant was not available. The service engineer again went to his house on 3.2.1994 but the complainant refused to allow the engineer to attend to the scooter. This was followed by two engineers sent by the manufacturer to the house of the complainant on 19.2.1994, who after briefly inspecting the scooter, requested the complainant to hand over the scooter to them for rectification of the defect with an undertaking to deliver the scooter duly set-right in terms of the warranty at his residence. The complainant, however, refused to hand over the scooter to the said engineers. Further case of the appellants is that in order to bring undue pressure to bear on the opposite parties, the complainant got published a letter to the Editor in the daily Statesman dated 21.3.1994 which was duly replied by the Co-ordinator Customers satisfaction by his letter dated 26.4.1994. The appellants also placed on records in the form of a chart the various complaints experienced by the complainant in the working of the scooter from time to time and action taken thereon as per Job Cards maintained by the opposite party. In short, the stand was that the scooter had been attended to every time a complaint was reported. After filing of the complaint, however the complainant refused to co-operate even though a number of engineers were sent to his residence to attend to the scooter.

(3.) Further case of the appellants is that the District Forum issued Notices to the opposite parties, appellants herein, for 7.7.1994. On that date a representative of the appellant Company appeared before the Forum and was allowed to file the written version by 22nd September, 1994. On the said date, the appellant's representative sought further time to file a detailed affidavit and the said prayer was refused by the District Forum. Subsequently before the final order was passed, a detailed affidavit, controverting main allegations and setting forth the opposite parties' case in the form of affidavit (Copy Annexure-E) was filed on 29.9.1994. The contention is that the District Forum failed to take notice of the contents of the said affidavit. Further plea of the appellants is that the complainant had approached MRTP Commission, New Delhi, and he could not avail of the remedy, if any, under the Consumer Protection Act.