VEENA SCOOTERS vs Amar Singh

THE complaint of Amar Singh was allowed by the District Forum, Patiala on February 13,1997 with the direction to the opposite party No. 1 - M/s. Veena Scooters, Rajpura to deliver back scooter to the complainant without charging anything and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation. Opposite party No. 1-M/s. Veena Scooters challenged the aforesaid order in this appeal. It is significant to be noticed that the manufacturer of Chetak Scooter were also impleaded as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Bajaj Auto Limited and Maharashtra Scooters Limited. However in the appeal filed by M/s. Veena Scooters, aforesaid companies were not impleaded as parties. Only Amar Singh, complainant has been impleaded as the respondent.

AMAR Singh purchased scooter from opposite party No. 1 on November 16, 1995. Immediately thereafter the defect appeared in the scooter. There appeared cracks in the chassis and engine kit was required to be replaced. Some repairs were effected by the opposite party No. 1, but they were not satisfactory. The present complaint was thus filed within a period of one year of the guarantee period and the scooter had not covered more that 12000 km. In the reply, filed by opposite party No. 1, it was alleged that the scooter was purchased from M/s. Hind Motors, Chandigarh and opposite party No. 1 merely allowed three free services to the scooter during this period. The acceptance of the scooter for effecting repair was admitted and after effecting the repairs bill for Rs. 8050/- was issued, which the complainant was not paying. A miscellaneous application having been filed, the District Forum directed return of the scooter and disposed of the complaint as above. Learned Counsel for the appellate has argued that when the scooter was given for repair to the appellant, the guarantee period was over and for the repairs done, the opposite party was entitled to charge for the same and the bill for Rs. 8050/- was issued, for which a separate suit was already filed during the pendency of the complaint. At the outset it may be stated that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act do not authorise the Fora to grant any interim relief to the opposite party. The scope of the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act is to find any deficiency in the matter of rendering service and to allow one or more of the reliefs as contemplated under Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.

In may be stated that no evidence has been produced by the opposite parties that the scooter was purchased from Hind Motors, Chandigarh. Thus for the purpose of disposal of the dispute, the plea of the complainant that the scooter was purchased from opposite party No. 1 would be accepted.

ONE of the disputed questions is as to whether at the time of filing of the complaint, the guarantee furnished by the manufacturer had already expired or not. The guarantee is for two counts - one is for time of one year and other is for 12000 kms. As far as time factor is concerned, the complaint was well within the period of limitation filed on November 15, 1996 that is within the guarantee period. With regard to the meter reading of the scooter at the time of filing of the complaint, there is no specific evidence to indicate that meter reading was more than 12000. The only evidence on which the opposite party relies is Ex. R-6 giving meter reading as 23416 on January 10,1997, when the scooter is alleged to have been taken for repairs. Ex. R-6 is a job card. From this job card, assuming the meter reading to be as stated above on January 10, 1997, no finding can be recorded that on the date of filing of the complaint, the meter reading could be more than 12000 kms. The complainant''s assertion in the complaint that it was less than 12000 kms. was not specifically denied in the written statement. After hearing Counsels for the parties, we are of the view that the approach of the District Forum in finally disposing of the complaint without referring to the consumer dispute as alleged was not proper. As already stated above, while disposing of an application filed by giving direction for return of the scooter and costs of litigation, the complaint was finally disposed of. The very fact that on the chassis were found cracks during the period of guarantee, the matter was required to be decided as to whether effecting repairs to the chassis was the appropriate remedy and if so who is to bear the expenses. The stand of the opposite party, the appellant, that it was only a sub-dealer and cannot be made liable to pay for the repairs to be done, may well be for good reason, more so when manufacturers of the scooter had been impleaded as parties and could be asked to meet the expenses. Guarantee was given by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. In the absence of the manufacturer of course dealer, being an agent of the manufacturer, could be asked to satisfy the complainant in the matter of relief. But when the manufacturer is made a party, the question of liability of the manufacturer was also required to be gone into and straightway no liability on the dealer or sub-dealer could be fastened. In this view of the matter, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the case deserves to be remanded to the District Forum for decision of the relief to be granted against the opposite parties according to law. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Forum for decision according to law. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 17.5.1999. Copy of the order alongwith District Forum record be sent there promptly. Appeal allowed.