A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : ATHYDERABAD

FA/2012   

Between :

GottipatiS/oHindu, aged 45 years,

GannavaramYeddanapudiPrakasam

His GPA agents/o

Business,Guntur district 

And

01.TATA Motors Limited, Floor no. 26,

Centre no. 1, Word Trade Centre,

Kuffee

02.M. G. Brothers automobiles Private Limited,

Throvagunta,Prakasam 

Counsel for the Appellant 

Counsel for the Respondents 

 R2 served.

Coram                              

And

Friday, the Twenty First Day of June

Two Thousand Thirteen

****

1.           This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant   

2.           The brief facts of the complaint       

3.         

The complaint is not   

4.   The second opposite party in his counter contending that the complaint is not maintainable since it is filed by the GPA holder and that the facility of warranty will become null and void since the complainant did not follow the condition ‘does and does not of

5.   Both 

6.   Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint

7.   Feeling aggrieved with the said order the complainant  which shows that the vehicle was having problem of poor pick up and starting trouble and that  

8.           

9.    

9.           There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the Motor Vehicle bearing No. AP 27 W 6318 with chassis No. 455021 LUZ 829444 and Engine No. 497 SPTC 39 LUZ 9046 20 from the second opposite party who is authorized dealer of first OP manufacturer on 10.05.2007 for valuable consideration by availing financial assistance from     

10. Whereas, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not establish with experts’ evidence that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle and therefore question of deficiency in service does not arise in this case and that the complaint was filed to subject the opposite parties to hardship and also for wrongful gain.

11.The Ops contended that since the complainant used the vehicle for commercial purposes he does not come within the definition of  

12.`  

13. In a decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 1586 in 

14.The complainant did not establish with any convincing material with expert’s opinion that there exists a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and his bald statement in the said context is not sufficient. Any technical defects should not be taken as manufacturing defects. 

15. In a decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 1586 in 

16.The complainant is utilizing the vehicle for commercial purpose. The

the goods sold by the appellant to the respondent/complainant amounted to `goods' and that such goods were purchased for commercial purpose of earning more profits, there could be no dispute that even the services which were offered had to be for the commercial purpose. Nothing was argued to the contrary. It seems that the whole error has crept in because of the wrong factual observation that the complaint was filed on 1.8.2000. In that view, it has to be held that the complaint itself was not maintainable, firstly, on the count that under Section 2(1In the light of the above decision, the complainant cannot be treated as

17.In the instant case, the complainant’s grievance that there was no pick up in the vehicle as expected and that there was no starting trouble. Such problems can be solved but on such score it is not desirable to order replacement of the vehicle or refund of money. 

18.In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the dismissal of the complaint.