Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/2275

SKODA AUTO INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BADRINARAYAN BANSALI - Opp.Party(s)

SH.DEEPESH SHUKLA

17 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 28.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.756/2013 by District Commission, Indore)

 

1. SKODA AUTO INDIA

    A-1/1 MIDC FIVESTAR INDUSTRIAL AREA,

    SHENDRA, AURANGABAD (MS)

 

2. SATGURU MOTORS,

    7/4 LASUDIA MORI, NEAR LASUDIYA

    POLICE STATION, NIRANJANPUR,

    A.B.ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                         ….           APPELLANTS.

 

                       Versus

 

BADRINARAYAN BHANSALI,

S/O LAXMINARAYAN BHANSALI,

LAVKUSH NAGAR, KHANDWA (MP)                                                             ….           RESPONDENT.                                

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                               :  MEMBER

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.

           Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.

          

 

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 17.05.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellants) is directed against the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.756/2013 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Skoda Fabia car bearing registration no. MP-09 CH-5352 which he had purchased from the opposite party no.2/appellant no.2 on 26.10.2011.  The vehicle was manufactured by the opposite party no.1/appellant no.1.  It is submitted that the subject vehicle carried two years’ warranty. It is alleged that after purchase of the subject vehicle, it started giving problems. There occurred difficulty in starting the vehicle as its battery turned defective. The complainant was asked to take the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party no.2/appellant no.2 but despite repairs, the subject vehicle was not running smoothly. It is also alleged that the opposite parties/appellants did not even replace the defective battery of the subject vehicle. Therefore alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties/appellants, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite parties/appellants in their reply before the District Commission resisted the complaint stating that every time the complainant reported problems in the subject vehicle, they had tried to remove the same. The subject vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defects. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

 

-3-

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties/appellants to carry out necessary repairs in the subject vehicle, even if it requires replacement of certain parties and handover the same in running condition to the complainant within one month. In addition, Rs.5,000/- per month is also directed to be paid to the complainant if the opposite parties/appellants fail to repair the subject vehicle, till the subject vehicle has been repaired.  In addition, compensation of Rs.10,000/- with another sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs is also awarded.

5.                Heard.  Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the complainant had misled the District Commission and has shifted the responsibility of his own misdeeds on part of the opposite parties/appellants as he did not properly use the subject vehicle, due to which its battery got discharged. He further argued that the District Commission has erred in jointly and severally directing the appellants to carry out repairs in the subject vehicle, and at the same time held them liable to compensate the complainant.  The subject vehicle was having no manufacturing defects and whenever it was brought to the appellants, they had properly analyzed and serviced it to the satisfaction of the complainant. He further argued that the direction for repairing the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant is not enforceable under the law. He therefore argued that impugned order be set-aside.  

-4-

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order relying on an inspection report prepared by Anuj Jain, who is an Automotive Engineer. This appeal filed by the opposite parties/appellants is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

8.                We find that there are categorical allegations from the complainant that recurrent problems were reported while running the subject vehicle.  There are specific allegations that the battery of the subject vehicle turned defective due to which he faced difficulty in getting the vehicle started.  The District Commission after consideration of the inspection report prepared by Anuj Jain, Automotive Engineer has directed the opposite parties/appellants to repair the subject vehicle.  Although a month’s time has been specified to carry out necessary repairs in the subject vehicle but the other part of the direction regarding payment of compensation Rs.5,000/- per month, without any specification of time period in that respect creates ambiguity, which deserved to be addressed.  Therefore, the aforesaid direction given in the impugned order, deserves modification.

9.                We accordingly direct the opposite parties/appellants to repair the subject vehicle, with replacement of any part, if required and subsequently handover the same to the complainant in running condition within a period of one month, as has been mentioned in the impugned order. 

-5-

The vehicle has been properly repaired and is in running condition can be ascertained by the District Commission through appointment of Commissioner in the matter.  If the opposite parties/appellants fail to repair the subject vehicle as aforesaid, within time frame mentioned as above, they are liable to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, till the vehicle is repaired. Rest of the directions in the impugned order shall remain unaltered.

10.              With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.  

                  

 (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (DR.SRIKANT PANDEY) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                        MEMBER