National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

Consumer Case Studies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

S N Kapoor, Presiding Member and Mrs B K Taimni, Member

Dr Hema Vasantial Dakoria - Petitioner
Versus
Bajaj Auto Limited & Ors - Respondents

Revision Petition No. 390 of 2003	Decided on 28.02.2005

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 and 17 - Scooter purchased by Complainant developed cracks in the chassis soon after its purchase - Claim for replacement of scooter - Respondent dealer offered to replace chassis and resisted complaint on the same plea - District Forum allowing complaint directed to replace scooter - State Commission in appeal directed Respondents to change chassis and pay compensation of Rs. 5000 - Revision Petition by Complainant - If a part found defective could be replaced or defect could be removed then replacement cannot be ordered - Impugned order called for no interference - However, compensation amount enhancement to Rs. 10,000/-.

Result: Revision disposed of.

IMPORTANT POINT

If a defective part in machine could be replaced or defect could be removed, there could not be order to replace the machine.

ORDER

B K Taimni, Member - Petitioner was the Complainant before the District Forum, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, Bajaj Auto Limited.

2.	Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant had purchased a "Bajaj Super" scooter for a consideration in Sep'96, which had allegedly developed crack on the chassis when it had not even run for 50 km or so. The matter was taken up with the dealer from whom the scooter was purchased and they offered to replace the chassis of the said scooter as it was within the warranty period but it was not acceptable to the Complainant, who was of the view that there is a manufacturing defect in the scooter, hence wanted replacement by a new scooter. When the issue was not getting resolved, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the Respondents to replace the scooter. On an appeal filed by the Respondents before the State Commission, it was allowed in part and the State Commission directed the Respondents to change the chassis of the scooter as also pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Not satisfied with this relief, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed this revision petition before us.

3.	We heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties at length. As per settled position of law that if a part could be replaced or a defect could be removed then replacement, cannot be ordered. In this case, no evidence has been led by the Complainant to tell that there is a manufacturing defect. Hence, we are unable to satisfy ourselves about allegation of manufacturing defect in the scooter. Since, it is the chassis, which had cracked, and since the State Commission ordered its replacement, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, which is upheld. However, we find that the Complainant has been inconvenienced, though partly on her own attitude, yet, keeping in view the fact that she remained deprived of the use of the scooter, we find that the compensation granted by the State Commission is inadequate, which we increase to Rs. 10,000/-. Rest of the order passed by the Slate Commission is maintained. The revision petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.