NATIONAL GARAGE Vs. GIRWAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 30.7.1999 in Complaint No. 150/98 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (the District Forum ) directing the appellant to pay to the complainant respondent a total amount of Rs. 20,056/ - including cost of the repairs recovered from the complainant by the appellant, as also damages, besides the cost of this complaint.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts stated in brief are that the complainant/respondent herein purchased a Hero Honda Motorcycle from the appellant on 29.7.1997 after paying its price of Rs. 35,940/ - as well as the road tax, insurance, etc. The warranty of the said motorcycle was for a period of 6 months or 7500 kms. whichever is earlier, as would be indicated by the copy of the warranty marked as Exhibit N -2 by the District Forum. The complainant availed of 1st servicing of vehicle on 27.8.1997 and 2nd servicing on 6.10.1997. On both the occasions, he had made complaints regarding defects in the motorcycle as would be clear from the job cards. A letter dated 11.12.1997 was also written by the complainant to the appellant -dealer, that there was no improvement in the condition of the motorcycle, upon which the appellant had requested the complainant to bring the vehicle to their garage for checkup and rectification of complaint therein. The complainant thereafter again produced the vehicle in the appellant s garage on 2.1.1998. Third servicing of the vehicle was done on that date and it was returned to the complainant respondent on 6.1.1998. It appears that even thereafter the complainant was not satisfied and complained to the appellant about the defects in the motorcycle. However, it appears that the appellant did not attend to the defects.

(3.) THE complainant, filed complaint before the District Forum. He averred in the complaint that the warranty was for a period of one year and that the complainant was assured that any defects during the above period would be rectified by the appellant. However, the said motorcycle continued to give trouble despite services availed of by the complainant, as per stipulation between the parties. The complainant, therefore, prayed that he be given a new motorcycle or in the alternate to averred that during the pendency of the complaint, the appellant dealer had asked the complainant to bring the motorcycle for removal of the defects upon which the complainant had given his motorcycle in the appellant s workshop. The said motorcycle was returned to the complainant on 23.9.1998, however, the respondent demanded Rs. 5,056/ - towards the repair charges which according to the complainant he was not liable to pay.