SHAIK GOUSE BASHA Vs. M.G. BROTHERS AUTOMOBILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant.

(3.) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle on 26-9-2007 from opposite party No.1, dealer of the manufacturer, opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.3 is his financier. He paid Rs.8,500/- towards down payment against the total amount of Rs.42,494/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount in instalments to opposite party no.3. It had collected blank cheques and obtained his signatures on some blank papers. A two years warrantee was given and the same was extended for two more years. While so, after one week, on 06-10-2007 the vehicle started giving trouble which was intimated to opposite party No.1, which it got it rectified after keeping the vehicle for a week. However, the defect in the vehicle was not rectified and it was alleged that it was a manufacturing defect. Despite his requests, opposite party no.1 did not attend to the repairs, there upon he got issued a legal notice dated 17-10-2007 demanding return of the cheques already issued to opposite parties and refund Rs.8,500/- with interest and terminate loan agreement or replace the vehicle with a new one and damages of Rs.10,000/- and costs.