JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Respondents are absent despite service. Respondent No. 1/complainant has received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. He has sent written submissions. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the written submission sent by the respondents. 3. The facts of this case are these. John Fernandes, the complainant, purchased an Eterno Scooter for a consideration of Rs.32,158/- from the General Manager, Shivsamarth Motoriders Pvt. Ltd. (Counto Honda), the dealer of the vehicle manufactured by the General Manager, Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana, who is arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in the complaint. The vehicle in question had warranty of two years. It is averred in the complaint that within 15 days from the date of purchase of the scooter, the complainant started facing engine noise while riding and also found that the handle of the vehicle was not straight, clutch lever was vibrating, front suspension was rattling, seat lock was defective and there was lot of vibrations to the said scooter. The scooter was sent to the opposite party No. 1. -3- 4. The job cards revealed that some defects were there. First of all, we discuss the job cards. The first job card goes to show that sound was coming from engine while riding, check clutch liver vibrations and handle was also found to be defective and it was stated that handle was not straight, check front suspension, crest fitting, check gear shifting from 3rd gear to 4th gear. This job card is dated 11.8.2005. We have also perused the second job card, which mentions that front suspension check and front noise check. However, it is surprising that Service Manager’s repair advice column is lying blank. It was not stated that what was done with the front suspension and front noise. It is also not stated whether the same was rectified or not. The way the opposite parties work is surprising. It nowhere says that the work was specifically done. The third job card reveals that certain parts were replaced. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that Cash Memo Counto Honda should be read in conjunction with the document which goes to show that on 18.11.2005, few parts were changed and the bill was charged from the petitioner during the warranty period. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these are those parts which are not covered by the warranty. We -4- have also perused the third job card which shows that check front suspension would be replaced after trial was taken. 5. Thirdly, there are other job cards as well wherein few defects were shown and the payment was charged from the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that these are some articles which are not covered by the warranty. 6. On the other hand, the written submission filed by the complainant goes to show that the complainant had visited the service center for more than 15 times. There are as many as 15 job cards within a period of two years. The respondent/complainant requested the petitioner time and again to remove the defects but the needful was not done. This is clear that the complainant has to undergo harassment, mental agony, anger, dissatisfaction by purchasing this vehicle. However, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the State Commission is too harsh. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that expert opinion should have been sought and without expert opinion, no compensation should have been granted. We are unable to see much merit in it. It is not necessary that expert opinion in each and every case should be produced. The facts of the case speak for itself. The petitioner points out that the vehicle had travelled to the extent of 13870 kilometers. We modify the order and direct that the petitioner would rectify the defects. The opposite parties 1 and 2 will rectify the defects, if any, within 60 days of his bringing the vehicle to opposite party No. 1. They will approach the complainant and request him to hand over the vehicle for repairing in writing as per the order passed by this Court. The opposite parties 1 and 2 will give further/extend warranty of one year. They will also pay Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.10,000/- which have been paid as litigation charges to the complainant, within 60 days otherwise it will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Rest of the order stands set aside. After expiry of 90 days, the petitioner can take back extra money deposited in the fora below. |
