Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/792/2017

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.Through Its. A.S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhagwan Das s/o Laxman Prasad - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Mootah

08 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 792 /2017

 

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. regd.office at Gateway Building, Appolo Bunder, Mumbai & ors.

Vs.

Bhagwan Das s/o Laxman Prasad r/o 125 Sarsai Darwaja, Ward No. 7 village Kumher Distt. Bharatpur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 763/2017

 

J.S.Fourwheels Motors Pvt.Ltd. Delhi Road, Alwar & ors.

Vs.

Bhagwan Das s/o Laxman Prasad r/o 125 Sarsai Darwaja, Ward No. 7 village Kumher Distt. Bharatpur & ors.

 

Date of Order 8.10.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

2

 

Mr. Rajesh Mootha counsel for the appellant Mahindra & Mahindra

Mr. Govind Sharma counsel for complainant Bhagwan Das

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are filed against the order dated 9.5.2017 passed by the District Forum Bharatpur whereby the Forum below has allowed the payment of cost of the vehicle alongwith compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

The contention of the appellants is that they are not deficient. Vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect. Whenever it was brought to the service station it was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. On 18.11.2013 water was found in fuel sensor and estimated cost of Rs. 6000/- were rightly demanded. The complainant has not paid the amount and malafidely submitted the complaint which should have been dismissed.

 

The contention of the complainant is that vehicle was

3

 

defective since inception hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was purchased on 6.12.2012. The service history Ex. 5 has been submitted by the appellant alongwith application which shows that on 18.12.2012 vehicle was brought to the service station for wheel alignment and rear shock absorbers whereas the contention of the complainant was that on that day the vehicle was having bend in the driver side wheel and shockers were also old but no such complaint has been recorded in the vehicle history. Again vehicle was brought to the service station on 4.3.2013 for wheel alignment, gear and clutch work. On that day also the complainant has not made the complaint that engine is seized.

 

The further contention of the complainant is that in August and November 2013 also the engine was seized but

 

4

 

service history of the vehicle dated 17.5.2013, 27.7.2013, 20.8.2013, 26.8.2013 ,14.10.2013 and 16.11.2013 contain no description or complaint as regard seizure of the engine. The vehicle was brought on the above dates only for washing, alignment or change of engine oil, gear , diff and filter oil etc. In the history sheet Ex. 5 dated 18.12.2012 to 16.11.2013 there is no narration of the fact that engine of the vehicle was get stuck and service history also disclosed that till 16.11.2013 the vehicle has run 29543 km.meaning thereby that the vehicle was running 80 km.per day and it may also be noted that complainant is residing in Kumher which is not the big city.

 

The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle was accidental and after paint it has been handed over to him but no evidence to support this contention is brought on record. Per contra the service history clearly speaks that every time when the vehicle was brought to the service station it was repaired or checked to the satisfaction of the complainant.

 

As per service history of 18.11.2013 the water is found

 

 

5

 

in fuel sensor and some other repairs to be made and the appellant service station has demanded about Rs. 6000/- from the complainant which is on the face of it deficiency on the part of the service station as the vehicle was under warranty for one year from the date of purchase i.e. 6.12.2012 and asking the amount for repair was deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants.

 

The appellant Mahindra & Mahindra has relied upon AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1586 Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar where the apex court has held that warranty condition clearly refers to replacement of defective part and not of car. Here in the present case also the vehicle is not defective. Only it needs some repairs. Hence, the order of the Forum below deserves to be set aside.

 

In view of the above, the appeals are partly allowed. The order of the Forum below dated 9.5.2017 is set aside to the extent of replacement of vehicle or payment of cost of vehicle Rs. 3,41,000/- but the appellants are directed to repair the vehicle within one month free of cost as required in the repair

 

6

 

order dated 18.11.2013 to the satisfaction of the complainant. Order for compensation and cost of proceedings is maintained.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm