P.R.J. ENTERPRISES vs Rajpal Singh

THE above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 25.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 307/2001 - entitled Shri Rajpal Singh v. P.R.J. Enterprises.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Rajpal Singh had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that he had purchased one CNG Auto, bearing Registration No. 6394, make Bajaj Auto-Model-2000 on 30.10.2000 from the appellant. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that the respondent on 14.2.2001 had approached the workshop of the appellant for service purposes and when on 15.2.2001 he went to collect the said vehicle after service from the workshop of the appellant, he was asked to pay the bill. As per the case of the respondent during first six months of the purchase the workshop of the appellant was under obligation to render free service. It was stated that despite protest by the respondent, the workshop of the appellant refused to deliver the vehicle and the respondent was forced to pay a sum of Rs. 1,750/- as service charges and another sum of Rs. 1,152/- as cost of the parts replaced. THE grievance of the respondent, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in nut-shell, was that no service charges and no charges for the replacement of the parts should have been charged from him by the appellant within the warranty period. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it was prayed that the entire amount charged by the workshop of the appellant be directed to be refunded together with compensation and litigation expenses. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the respondent had not approached the District Forum with clean hands. On merits it was stated that the CNG Auto in question was purchased by the respondent on 5.10.2000 and the warranty period in respect of that vehicle had expired on 5.2.2001 and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to give free service to the respondent.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and has directed the appellant to refund the amount charged from the respondent for servicing the vehicle or repairing the same during the warranty period. The learned District Forum has also awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record, the purchase of CNG Auto, bearing Registration No. 6394, make Bajaj Auto-Model-2000 by the respondent from the appellant is not in dispute. The only question requiring consideration is as to whether the period of warranty in respect of that vehicle was six months from the date of purchase or was it four months as projected by the appellant before the District Forum and also by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us. On the basis of documents/material on record, more particularly, the contents of the impugned order, it is apparent that in the warranty card in question, on a slip, which was super-imposed, the period of warranty had been mentioned as six months or 25,000 kms. whichever is earlier. Not only this in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, before the District Forum the period of warranty had been mentioned as six months. Even in the affidavit dated 4.3.2002, filed on behalf of the appellant, before the District Forum, the period of warranty has been mentioned as six months from the date of purchase. The learned Counsel for the appellant, during the course of the arguments, has made a vain attempt by saying that inadvertently, the period of warranty had been mentioned in the reply/written version and also in the affidavit, filed by the appellant, as six months whereas the same was four months only. No document in support of the above contention that the period of warranty in respect of the vehicle in question was four months and not six months had been placed by the appellant either before the District Forum or before us. On the contrary in the warranty card, in the reply/written version and in the affidavit, filed on behalf of the appellant, the period of warranty has been mentioned as six months. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the period of warranty as six months was mentioned inadvertently is without any substance and appears to be an after-thought because a lapse can occur only once and not repeatedly as in the present case. Moreover, the document i.e., letter dated 10.4.2001, written by Shri Anil Malhotra, the Works Manager of the appellant, as rightly held by the learned District Forum, clinches the matter finally.

THUS, viewed from all angles, the order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well-reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.