B.P.MISHRA vs PROPRIETOR, SREE AUTO SERVICES

IN this appeal the sole point for decision is whether the direction of the District Forum that the dispute should be decided by the Civil Court is correct or not. The dispute before the District Forum was whether the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs. 2,047.83 paid to opposite party No. 1, the dealer of a Bajaj Kawasaki motor-cycle, who charged this amount towards cost of the ignitor which turned defective within the period of warranty. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the motor-cycle on 23.8.1995 for Rs. 33,530/- from opposite party No. 3, the dealer of opposite party No. 2, the manufacturer. The vehicle carried a warranty for 12 months. Since its ignitor turned defective, this was replaced by opposite party No. 1 (though opposite party No. 3 was the registered service centre for after-sale service of M/s. Bajaj Auto). It is claimed that opposite party No. 1 took a claim form from the complainant, and assured the complainant that he would pay back the amount after receiving the same from opposite party No. 2, the manufacturer.

OPPOSITE party No. 3 i.e., the seller of the motor-cycle defended the case of the opposite parties by a common written version. The case of the opposite parties is that the ignitor was replaced during the warranty period, and no amount was charged and the claim of the complainant was a false one. The District Forum was reluctant to decide the matter holding that it needed elaborate evidence to prove that the complainant in fact paid the amount under Ext. 1 and that opposite party No. 3 to prove that the spare part purchased under Ext. 1 did not relate to the motor-cycle in question and therefore, directed the matter to be decided by the Civil Court.

We are totally in disagreement with the finding of the District Forum. The sole point for decision before the District Forum was whether the complainant had paid the cost of the ignitor as claimed by him, and that too during the warranty period, he is entitled to refund of that amount. The complainant claimed in the complaint petition that on 8.12.1995 he paid the amount of Rs. 2,047.83 p. towards the cost of ignitor and on the same day opposite party No. 1 took a Claim Form from him i.e., Claim No. 917381 and gave assurance to refund the money, the moment the same was received from opposite party No. 2. This is supported by the document, Ext. 2 which is the warranty certificate for 40 Champion. It mentions, ignitor replaced on 8.12.1996 at 1965 Kms. The cash memo of opposite party No. 1 is dated 8.12.1995 charging Rs. 2,047.83 p. towards the cost of the ignitor, in the appropriate column mentioning the part No. as 311111011. The statement of claim settlement in March, 1996 is dated 7.4.1996 and the document shows that the opposite party No. 1''s claims on different counts by different customers during the servicing of various vehicles was settled by Bajaj Auto. The complainant''s claim is found in the said statement. Part number mentioned in the cash memo as ''ignitor'' also finds place in the statement of claims settled and the price is found to be Rs. 1,461.32 p.

FROM the above document it is crystal clear that the complainant had paid the present appellant the amount of Rs. 2,047.83 p. towards cost of the ignitor. The District Forum was completely in error in saying that the matter should be decided by the Civil Court. In the fact of these documents there cannot be any doubt that the appellant has charged the cost of the parts replaced during the warranty period and, therefore, he is liable to refund the amount. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount with interest at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum from 8.12.1995 till the payment is made. Appeal allowed.