Dr P D Shenoy, Member - The Complainant had purchased a scooter of Bajaj make on payment of Rs. 33,560 in cash. It is the say of the Complainant that though the opposite party Lovely Autos had assured the Complainant that this particular brand of scooter has got a very good engine and would run smoothly for at least ten years, he found it to be a defective vehicle. Within the first month of the purchase of the vehicle, on two or three occasions, the scooter stopped in mid way and the Complainant had to bring back the scooter on a rickshaw. Hence, he filed a complaint before the District Forum with a request to direct the opposite party (OP) to replace the scooter and pay damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000 or return the cost of the scooter i.e. Rs. 33,560 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and Rs. 25,000 as damages.
2.	After hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed to OP either to change the scooter with a new trouble free scooter or to refund the money within one month from the date of receipt of the order with Rs. 2,000 as costs. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which did not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum and, therefore, dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, M/s Lovely Autos had filed this revision.
Findings:
3.	It is not disputed that the scooter was purchased on 2.5.2001 and the complaint was filed after the warranty period on 9.5.2002. The District Forum has relied upon the report of one Mr Ashwani Kumar Chawla of Chawla Service Station who claims himself to be the specialist in all kinds of scooter, motorcycle repair and spares at Jalandhar. The date of the report is 13.8.2002. The title of the report is Estimate Bajaj Safire. This estimate report states that the scooter was brought on 12.8.2002. Its self-starter is not working and to detect the fault, it is necessary to open the engine. The Complainant has stated that he brought his vehicle on foot by dragging it 8-10 kms and the engine is making noise and the scooter is stopping and the magnet of the engine is turning; hence it appears that the power is not generated. After opening the pump, defect in the piston can be detected. However, this estimate cannot be construed as an evidence of an expert. Further, the District Forum passed the order on 14.8.2002 soon after the receipt of this so called certificate, without getting any affidavit of the signatory. We do not know the level of the expertise of Shri Ashwani Kumar Chawla i.e. whether he has a degree or diploma in Automobile Engineering. On the other hand, we have an affidavit of Shri N.R. Gupta, Chief Works Manager of Lovely Autos, wherein he has stated that on 9.6.2001 the Complainant visited the workshop of the Opposite Party for free service and oil change and running repairs which were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. On 24.8.2001, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for minor repairs such as horns, locks, front suspensions, etc., which were carried out to his entire satisfaction. There was no defect in the engine as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant had left his vehicle at his own sweet will at their workshop on 1.4.2002 for testing and replacement of the battery and the same was done without cost to the Complainant. The claim receipt etc. dated 25.4.2002 indicates that there was no defect in the engine as checked by their technical expert. The Complainant has not chosen to cross examine this deponent and hence his evidence has gone un-rebutted. Opposite Party wrote letters to the Complainant on three occasions on 7.5.2002; 16.5.2002 and 14.6.2002 through registered post/speed post stating that the vehicle is ready after replacement of the battery and rectification of the running defects and had been asked to collect the same. Despite that he did not collect the vehicle immediately but he collected it some time after filing the complaint.
4.	Having heard the parties’ counsels and having considered the evidence, we are not convinced that there were manufacturing defects warranting replacement of the vehicle or refund of the total amount. Hence, revision petition is allowed and the order of State Commission is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
Revision allowed.