Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd vs S K Behl

FOR having manufactured and sold the defective motor cycle of Yamaha make for a price of Rs. 46,032, the appellant vide impugned order dated 27.12.2000 which was passed ex parte by the District Forum has been directed either to replace the defective motorcycle with a new one with a fresh guarantee or refund the price with the interest of 18% and also pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order the appellant has directed this appeal.

APPELLANT was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and was not given an opportunity of being heard. The motorcycle was purchased on 22.5.99. On 21.9.99, the respondent reported the following defects; (i) Lack of pick up wither during long run or during short run. (ii) After motorcycle runs for 10 to 15 kilometres, the problem in its gear box number 2 starts. (iii) The average consumption of petrol is below 50 kms. per litre while in the booklet it was shown to be 75 kms. per litre. During the course of repairs carried out by M/s Bharat Automobiles, the emergency and the fuel tank of the motorcycle got damaged. The matter was brought to the notice of the CGM on 4.1.2000. On 12.2.2000 it was again brought to the notice of the respondent that the old gear problem still persisted. The respondent was informed on 16.2.2000 by the appellant that the respondent had agreed to send the satisfaction report within 10 -15 days. However, the problem of the gear box continued to persist. The defects could not be repaired in spite of payment of Rs. 2,633.45 for replacing the fuel tank. While refuting the allegations of the respondent, the appellant has in this appeal taken the stand that the respondent has misled the District Forum that the fuel tank was damaged on account of additional expenses on the cost of the appellants employee and that the appellant has got the fuel tank compensated from the Insurance Company. Whenever the respondent got his motor cycle repaired and serviced, he always issued satisfaction report to the dealer. The motorcycle was purchased in the year 1999 and now we are in 2005, and during this period, the respondent has been driving the motorcycle by incurring the expenses for its repairs.

IN our view, the replacement will be of no use as it is reported that the manufacturer of Yamaha motorcycle has stopped manufacturing the Yamaha motorcycle nor do we agree for refund of the price of the motorcycle as for past six years respondent has been using the motorcycle and instead compensate the appellant for the loss and injury suffered by him. Taking overall view of the matter, we allow the appeal partly and modify the impugned order by awarding Rs. 15,000 as compensation towards loss and injury suffered by the respondent.

THE Bank guarantee/FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal partly allowed. -