BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 97 OF 2016 AGAINST CC No.120 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- RANGA REDDY
Between :
M/s. Automotive Manufactures Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Vice President Sri T.R. Ganesh Aiyer,
S/o. Late Sri TKR Aiyer, Aged about 53 years,
Occ: Service R/o. C/o.8571, Rastrapathi Road,
Secunderabad. . … Appellant / Opposite party No.1
AND :
Khethayathi Pratap Singh Naik,
S/o. K.Lal Singh, Aged about 32 years,
Occ; Private Employee, R/o. H.No.2-135/151/A,
Ushodaya Colony, Gajularamaram Road,
Jeedimetla, R.R. District. ….Respondent No.1/ Complainant
M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers,
3rd Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali (E),
MUMBAI – 400101. …. Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite party No.1 : M/s. M.Papa Reddy &
Associates
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Venkateswarlu,
Vijay Kumar – R1,
Sri T.S.R. Prasad – R2
FA No. 100 OF 2016 AGAINST CC No.120 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- RANGA REDDY
Between :
M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers,
3rd Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali (E),
MUMBAI – 400101. ….Appellant /Opposite party No.2
AND :
Khethayathi Pratap Singh Naik,
S/o. K.Lal Singh, Aged about 32 years,
Occ; private Employee, R/o. H.No.2-135/151/A,
Ushodaya Colony, Gajularamaram Road,
Jeedimetla, R.R. District. ….Respondent No.1/ Complainant
M/s. Automotive Manufactures Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
172/2, Near Manjeera Reservoir, Hyder Nagar,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad. … Respondent No.2/ Opposite party No.1
Counsel for the Appellant /Opposite party No.2 : Sri T.S.R. Prasad
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Venkateswarlu,
Vijay Kumar – R1,
Sri M.Papa Reddy – R2
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
,
Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth of February
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
These two Appeals arise from the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum – Ranga Reddy (for brevity, “the District Forum”) in C.C.no.120/2015. The parties will be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the complaint.
- The Complainant had set up a claim before the District Forum by contending, in brief, that he purchased a 4 wheeler vehicle i.e., Mahindra Scorpio TS 07 EB 0122 for a cost of Rs.14,15,000/- on 10.04.2014 from the Opposite Party no.1-dealer of which the Opposite Party no.2, is the manufacturer. The further case of the complainant is that from the date of purchase, the vehicle started giving trouble and that despite taking it to the Opposite Party no.1 number of times and attending to the repairs, the problem could not be resolved causing lot of inconvenience, physical strain and mental agony to him apart from financial loss. Therefore he sought from the District Forum either to replace the vehicle with a new one as there was inherent manufacturing defect in it or to refund it’s purchase amount with interest and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs on the premise of deficiency in service.
- While admitting the fact of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, the opposite parties have disputed the claim by way of filing separate respective written versions, on the grounds, interlia, that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle with some complaint, they were attended to immediately at times by replacing the defective parts with new one and delivered back to him to his satisfaction. Further, the complainant failed to take appropriate care in maintaining the vehicle as per the guidelines provided in the warranty book which shows his own negligence. They have also contended that for the last time i.e., on 03.01.2015 after attending to all the required repairs at Jeedimetla Workshop of the Opposite Party no.1, it was kept ready but the complainant failed to take its delivery despite addressing two letters on 03.02.2015 and 17.02.2015 for no reason and filed the complaint with baseless and imaginary grounds. Infact, he is liable to pay the garage charges @ Rs.150/- per day to the Opposite Party no.1which comes to the tune of Rs.10,500/-. However, after filing of the complaint he took delivery of the vehicle on 30.03.2015 and using the same without any demur. Having used the vehicle with 21776 Kms., till 03.01.2015, he cannot claim that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect. For all these reasons they prayed to reject the claim by way of dismissing the complaint with costs.
- After due enquiry into the matter, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Parties to replace the subject vehicle with a new one of the same model with new warranty along with other fittings or alternatively to refund the purchase money of Rs.14,15,000/-with interest @ 9%p.a., from the date of the complaint till realization and also to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/- by granting one month time for compliance. This order is now impugned in the present two appeals i.e., F.A.no.97/2016 filed by the Opposite Party no.1 & F.A.no.100/2016 field by Opposite Party no.2.
- The contention of the Appellants / Opposite Parties in both the appeals, in brief, is that the District Forum has passed the order erroneously without appreciating the fact that the complainant did not file the job card dated 03.05.2014 so also any independent expert opinion to establish his claim. Merely because the vehicle was brought to the workshop repeatedly with different complaints, does not refer it to be tagged having manufacturing defects. The District Forum ought to have found the complainant guilty for improper usage of the vehicle without following the Owners Manual. The complaint was filed by him with an intention to make money illegally by throwing blame on the opposite parties without any evidence but the District Forum failed to consider all these aspects and passed the impugned order on assumption and presumption, even by ignoring the fact that the complainant covered a distance of 21776 KMs by using the vehicle within a period of 8.5 months from the date of purchase and that as such the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeals.
- No written arguments were filed by the parties to the appeals. Heard both the learned counsel.
- Now the point for consideration is that:
whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal both on facts and under law and that as such liable to be set aside?
- Point :- It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the vehicle, Mahindra Scorpio TS07 EB 0122 from the Opposite Party no.1 dealer, for a sum of Rs.14,15,000/- on 10.04.2014, of which the Opposite Party no.2 company is the manufacturer. The specific contention of the complainant is that from the date of purchase, the vehicle started problems in plying it smoothly for various reasons in the engine due to manufacturing defect and that it could not be rectified by Opposite Party no.1 despite taking it for repairs on various dates. Per contra, the Opposite Parties have pleaded that the complainant himself was negligent in using the vehicle as per the guidelines provided in the Owners Manual and the Warranty Book and that every time the repairs were attended to and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant by obtaining a Satisfactory Certificate from him. Evidently, the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party no.1 dealer on 03.05.2014, 01.07.2014, 01.08.2014, 25.09.2014, 20.11.2014, 22.11.2014, 19.12.2014 and finally on 03.01.2015 and got it repaired, including the first three free services. The vehicle covered a distance of 21776 Kms., within a span of about 8 months from the date of its purchase. At times the complainant was made to bear the expenses for the parts replaced by the Opposite Party no.1. No doubt, the Opposite Party no.1 has attended to the complaints and delivered the vehicle to the complainant every time but the fact remains that the complainant was made to take it to the workshop repeatedly with some or other problem causing inconvenience, physical and mental strain apart from financial loss. Despite attending to the repairs for about 8 months it could not be made road worthy to ply smoothly. No doubt, the Opposite Parties have alleged that they obtained Satisfactory Certificate every time from the complainant whenever the vehicle was delivered to him after attending the due repairs, but the same were not filed for perusal. The Opposite Parties have alleged that the complainant did not take the vehicle to any independent authorized workshop and obtain an expert opinion to establish his claim of manufacturing defect but it is to be seen that nothing prevented the Opposite Parties to do the same and establish their bonafides. As the present dispute is covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is a beneficial legislation, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to decide the issue. Therefore, the aspect of burden of proof pales into insignificance. In the given circumstance the Opposite Parties ought to have discharged their onus of proof and shown that the vehicle in question was without any inherent manufacturing defects. It is also to be seen that when they have claimed a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards garage charges @ 150/- per day by alleging that despite their addressing two letters on 03.02.2015 and 17.02.2015, the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle, they did not choose to file the said letters. In the given set up facts and circumstances it can be inferred that the complainant having fed up with the performance of the vehicle was constrained to surrender it to the Opposite Party no.1 and approach the District Forum for redressal and that too after issuing of due Legal Notice dated 16.02.2015. Though the said notice was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties, they failed to respond. The learned District Forum has dealt with all these aspects in a minute details in the impugned order by relying, in our opinion rightly, on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors Ltd., Vs., Lachusethi, 2005 (II) CPJ (NC). It has also given the nature of problems with the vehicle whenever it was taken to the workshop of the Opposite Party no.1. We do not find any illegality or material irregularity with the District Forum in passing the impugned order. In this view of the matter we hold that both the appeals are devoid of any merits and that as such liable to be dismissed.
- The point is answered accordingly against the Appellants.
10. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed by confirming the impugned order, with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt.28 .02.2017
