Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/14/909

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJEET KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 23.04.2014 passed in C.C.No.09/2012 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

STAR AUTOMOBILES LTD. & ANR.                                                                …          APPELLANTS

 

Versus

                 

AJEET KUMAR & ANOTHER.                                                                          …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 23.04.2014 passed in C.C.No.09/2012 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED.                                                             …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

AJEET KUMAR & ORS.                                                                                   …         RESPONDENTS.  

                                  

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA :      MEMBER

  

 

                                      O R D E R

 

10.05.2023

 

            Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the complainant.

            Shri R. B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Mahindra & Mahindra Limited.

            Shri Mohan Chouksey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3-Star Automobiles Ltd.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari :                       

            The aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.09/2012 therefore they are taken up together and are being disposed of this order. Facts are taken from the First Appeal No.853/2014 unless otherwise stated.

-2-

2.                In brief, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that on 23.11.2009, he had purchased a Scorpio Jeep from the opposite party no.3, sub-dealer of opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer of the subject vehicle. The opposite parties have given warranty for two years or 50,000 kms, whichever is earlier. It is alleged that on 25.08.2011 during journey from Sagar to Nagpur, near Seoni all of a sudden stopped functioning. It was found that the engine was ceased and engine oil spread out.  It is alleged that despite repeated requests, the opposite parties did not remove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties approached the District Commission seeking relief. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,00,000/- out of the three accounts of the deceased mother of the complainant. Against this order, the complainant and the opposite parties have filed the aforesaid appeals.

3.                The opposite party no.1-Mahindra & Mahindra Limited resisted the complaint stating that the opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer. The complainant had purchased the vehicle from the opposite party no.3, sub-dealer of opposite party no.2, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.1. The complainant was using the said vehicle

-3-

for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. On an inspection carried out by the Engineer, it was found that due to hydraustatic lock, the engine became defected. The complaint of engine was not covered as per warranty terms and conditions and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

4.                The opposite party no.2 & 3 resisted the complaint stating that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose and defect comes due to negligent driving.  There was no manufacturing defect in the engine. On inspection being carried out by the opposite party no.1-manufacturer, the hydraulic system was found lock, which does not fall under the category of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2 and 3. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

5.                The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,95,166/-, the cost of new engine with interest @ 8.5% from 18.07.2012 till payment. Compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. Hence the opposite party no.2 &3 have filed Appeal no.853/2014 and Appeal no.909/2014 has been filed by the opposite party no.1.

3.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that during the pendency of the appeal, the

-4-

opposite party no.1 in its appeal, has filed IA-3, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with documents.

4.                Learned counsel for opposite party no.1-Mahindra & Mahindra Limited submits that though it was brought to the knowledge of the District Commission that the vehicle was inspected by the Engineer, who found the hydraulic locked but the report of the engineer could not be filed before the District Commission along with evidence therefore the said documents are necessary to be taken on record for fair adjudication of the dispute. 

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant as also the opposite party no.2 & 3 submit that they have no objection in allowing the application and in taking the documents filed along with the application on record.

6.                Having gone through the documents we find that the same are necessary to be taken on record for fair adjudication of the complaint. In the circumstances, we allow the application and the documents filed along with it are taken on record.

7.                Copy of application and documents be sent to the District Commission along with record of the District Commission and copies be kept in the record.

8.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 20.06.2023

 

-5-

9.                Parties are permitted to file additional evidence in support of their respective claim.

10.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter accordance with law after considering the newly filed documents. The District Commission is expected to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

11.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order is set-aside. The appeals stand disposed of.

12.              This order be placed in First Appeal No. 853/2014 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.909/2014. 

 

       (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

   Presiding Member          Member                      Member