SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs L.M.L. Ltd.

THIS is an original case where the complainant, the owner of an LML Vespa scooter bearing registration No. OR-05B-2925 claims against the manufacturer of the scooter for compensation because of the inherent defects therein. It is claimed that the manufacturer LML Ltd. advertised with attractive offers recommending the customers to go for this particular model for its fuel efficiency, i.e. 70 kms. per litre and excellent mechanism. Complainant purchased the same on 3.9.1993. But found the fuel consumption to be extremely high. Hardly a few days after its use the scooter gave various problems and defects were attended to by the dealer-appellant. The details of such work has been given out in paragraph 8 of the complaint petition which we do not like to quote to avoid making this judgment unnecessarily lengthy.

THE manufacturer did not appear. THE dealer filed a written version on behalf of both. THEir main defence is that since defects were removed by attending to the same, there was no question of deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that whatever defects were pointed out they were because of bad maintenance and the faulty manner of driving the vehicle by the complainant. We have heard Mr. P.K. Ray, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. M.S. Panda, learned Counsel for the dealer. Having heard the learned Counsel for both sides and on going through the pleadings of the parties and the job cards exhibited in this case, we dispose of the matter in the following manner : The complainant gave specifically 23 occasions with dates and particulars of the defects and the job card when the scooter was attended to by opposite party No. 1. This position is not disputed. Rather it is specifically admitted by the opposite parties in the written version and they have also mentioned in paragraph 9 of the written version giving a statement of the details of the job undertaken as per the cards with dates. With reference to this admitted position and with reference to the job cards Mr. Panda has strenously urged that the opposite party No. 3 did mention in the job cards the reasons for the defects cropping up in the scooter. But we may point out that the scooter was purchased on 3.9.1993 and on 15.9.1993 during the first free service no doubt there was overall check up, but the self starter was found to be not functioning for which the cut-out relay was changed. Job Card No. 20868 dated 24.11.1993 filed from the side of the dealer shows that sound in the engine was checked up. This admittedly shows that the engine was perhaps giving an unusual sound. Job Card No. 21299 dated 6.1.1994 shows that the engine sound, petrol leaking and starting problem had been checked up. There is a writing that all works have been done. Job Card No. 21832 dated 23.3.1994 shows that there was low mileage of consumption of oil, i.e. 33 kms. per litre in town and this was on test. On 19.3.1994, as the job card shows, the speedometer was changed. Ignition switch was changed on 21.3.1994. Job Card No. 22395 dated 12.4.1994 shows that there was oil leakage from the key starter and from clutch side. There was low pick up. It is not known whether this leakage of oil from the key starter and the clutch starter was attended to. On 4.6.1994 the front wheel bearing and roller bearing were changed. All these defects do indicate that the vehicle was not a dependable one and started giving trouble rather erratically from the date of purchase. Job Card No. 20868 dated 24.11.1993 (referred to at page 4 of the show-cause filed by the opposite parties) shows that when the vehicle had run 2303 kms. and it was the second free service, the engine was checked up for unusual sound, low pick up, defective headlight and rear brake. Service relating to these defects were done and cylinder head was decarbonised. Low pick up and the unusual engine sound were because of the cylinder head having been highly decarbonised. This is the reason given in the remarks column of the statement attached to the written version. Job Card No. 21299 dated 6.10.1994 shows that when the vehicle had covered 3300 kms. the starting problem was checked up, sound of the head checked up and engine sound was also checked up. The head was decarbonised. The reason for high carbon deposit on the cylinder head as given by the opposite parties was that there was mixture of improper lubricant with fuel. 5. Mr. Panda submitted strenuously that it was apparently because of bad maintenance and improper mixture of the mobil/2-T at the time of putting the petrol. We cannot accept this contention. The defects pointed out, as discussed above, have cropped up hardly few days after the purchase. The defects with regard to various parts mentioned above are unusual in case of either a Bajaj scooter or even a Lambreta scooter. We cannot accept the cotention of Mr. Panda that the opposite parties have been able to prove that because of the improper mixture of the lubricant with petrol there was carbonisation of the cylinder head. In our view such defects only manifest an inherent defect in the engine itself.

We would not hold the LML Company to have resorted to unfair trade practice because of these defects pointed out by us. LML Vespa scooter had a good market in this part of the State. But as ill-luck would have it, the complainant is the person who has suffered because of the defects pointed out and also the rectification undertaken by the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, we have not thought it proper to award any compensation. But since the complainant has suffered by taking the scooter on so many occasions to the garage that itself shows the mental stress and agony from which he must have suffered. With such defects as pointed out, one cannot have the pleasure of riding a scooter. If the scooter is not dependable, the user of the scooter has every justification to grumble. We find the case of the complainant to be one of such types. 7. Accordingly, we allow the complaint petition, direct the dealer as well as the manufacturer that they shall pay back the money amounting to Rs. 26,114/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum on the said amount to be calculated from the date of purchase, i.e. 3.9.1993 till the filing of the complaint case on 21.1.1995 and at the rate of 10 (ten) per cent per annum from 22.1.1995 till payment. All the opposite parties are made jointly and severally liable. The amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Complaint allowed.