BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 29 OF 2017 AGAINST C.C.NO.12 OF 2016 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM MEDAK AT SANGA REDDY
Between
- Mahindra & Mahindra Showroom at Sangareddy
(Automative Manufacturers Pvt Ltd.,)
Opp: New Collectrate, District Medak
Rep. by its Vice President
T.R.Ganesh Aiyer S/o late TKR Aiyer
Aged about 55 years, R/o Secunderabad
- Automative Manufactuers Private Limited
D.No.8-2-248/1/7/13, Ground Floor
Plot No.13, Nagrjuna Coop. Housing Society
Nagarjuna Circle, Punjagutta, Hyderabad-500 055
Rep. by its Vice Persdient T.R.Ganesh Aiyer
S/o late TKR Aiyer, aged about 55 yrs,
R/o Secunderabad
Appellants/ opposite parties
AND
Chakali Naresh S/o Mallaiah
H.No.1-100/2, Venkataistapuram
(Angadipet) (V), Pulkal(M) Medak Dist-502273
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants M/s M.Papa Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent Party in Person
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sangareddy dated 30.11.2016 made in CC No.12 of 2016 wherein it allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for the agony and loss of livelihood suffered by him (for more than one year) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 27.06.2015 he purchased Mahindra Alfa DX Passenger three wheeler vehicle for an amount of Rs.2,00,989/- from the opposite party no.1 and the said vehicle got warranty of one year. While so in the month of December 2015 the said vehicle gave trouble, he took the same to the workshop for repairs and the same was rectified by the mechanic. Again on 14.01.2016 the gear box failed and he took it to the workshop but was directed by them to take the vehicle to Kompally and they took 12 days to repair the vehicle. Again in the month of February 2016 the vehicle did not start and the complainant informed the Manager of the opposite parties and the Manager assured him that they will send a mechanic but did not do so. Thereafter , on the instructions of the opposite parties contacted the Hydernagar Branch who called the opposite party no.1 Manager and instructed him to send the mechanic to get the vehicle for repairs. Then the mechanic came and took the vehicle repaired in their workshop. Fed up with the frequent problems in the vehicle the complainant requested them to replace the vehicle with a new one but they did not take any steps to replace the same. He purchased the auto for his livelihood by availing finance from Mahindra Finance Company and they have seized the vehicle due to non-payment installments. Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to provide a new auto and reimburse the down payment along with installments; to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4. The opposite parties resisted the case contending that though the complaint was filed by the owner of the complainant but the signature does not belongs to him. It appears that the complainant’s brother signed the complaint on behalf of the complainant and also he attested the signatures on the complaint. The vehicle was brought for repair in the month of January, 2016 with complaint of problem in the gear box but the complainant did not allow them to repair the vehicle and took it back. Meanwhile, the opposite parties received a notice dated 28.02.2016 with false allegations. Thereafter on 17.04.2016 the complainant brought the vehicle for the repair of gear box and when the opposite parties sought for explanation for the issuance of legal notice and asked him to give his consent for carrying out repairs in writing then the complainant issued a letter dated 17.04.2016 stating that it is his younger brother who had issued the notice and that he has no concern with the same and requests to carried out the repairs. In pursuance of the said letter, opposite parties had carry out repairs and the complainant had taken back the vehicle by issuing satisfaction letter. There are no defects in the vehicle and the complaint filed by the complainant with malafide intention. Hence, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In proof of the complainant’s case, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the opposite parties, Mr.T.R.Ganesh Aiyer, Vice President filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No. 12 of 2016 by orders dated 20.11.2016 as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parteis preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The District Forum failed to see that the letter dated 17.04.2016 and the RC book of the vehicle signed by the complainant in English whereas the complaint was signed in Telugu. The complainant has failed to file any document to prove his contention that the vehicle had encountered problem within a period of 3 months from the date of its purchase. The District Forum failed to consider the documents Exs.B1 and B2 filed by the opposite parties. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that having issued a letter of satisfaction vide Ex.b2 the complainant was estopped from making contrary allegations contrary to the letter of satisfaction. Hence, the opposite parties prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum and to dismiss the complaint.
8. Counsel for the appellant and the respondent party in person present and were heard. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
10. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Mahindra Alfa DX Passenger three wheeler from the opposite party no.1 for an amount Rs.2,00,989/- and the said vehicle possess warranty of one year. While so the vehicle started giving problems and that the opposite parties could not rectify the said problems permanently and as such he prayed cost of the vehicle with interest, compensation and costs.
11. On the other hand it is the version of the opposite parties that when the complainant brought the vehicle for repairs to their workshop for the problem of gear box the opposite parties were ready for the repairs but the complainant went away stating that he would come again for the said repairs. Thereafter all off sudden the opposite parties received a legal notice dated 28.02.2016 making untenable and false allegations. The complainant again on 17.04.2016 came to their workshop and requested for the repair of the gear box. The opposite parties sought for explanation from the complainant for having issued a legal notice and asked him to issue consent letter for carrying out repairs and the complainant has given the same stating that it is his younger brother who had issued the legal notice and that he has no concern with the same. After carrying repairs the opposite parties handed over the vehicle to the complainant and the complainant to that effect issued a satisfaction letter. ]
12. Ex.B1 is the letter dated 17.04.2016 addressed to the opposite party no.2 in which the complainant stated that the legal notice was issued by his younger brother and that he has no concern with regard to that legal notice and gave consent for the repairs of the gear box. Thereafter the complainant issued satisfaction letter Ex.B2 stating that the opposite parties had repaired the gear box problem and that he had satisfied with the said repairs. From the said exhibits it is clear that the opposite parties had rectified the gear box problem and handed over the vehicle to the complainant to his satisfaction. The complainant has stated in his complaint that for the first time the vehicle was gave for repairs in the month of December 2015 for some problem and the opposite parties have rectified the said problem and handed over to the complainant for which the complainant has not filed any job card. Thereafter in his complaint stated that again on 14.01.2016 when the vehicle had problem in the gear box, he gave the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite parties and they kept the vehicle with them for few days and repaired vehicle and the complainant filed Ex.A3 dated 14.01.2016 to show that the opposite parties have repaired the vehicle and handed over to him on 23.01.2016. Thereafter as per the version of the opposite parties the complainant brought the vehicle to their workshop on 17.04.2016 for repairs of the gear box and after obtaining satisfaction letter the opposite parties handed over the said vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. But none of the parties have filed any job cards for the subsequent repairs as stated by both parties. It is a settled law that the complainant has to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle by adducing expert evidence in this regard. There is nothing on record what to say of any expert evidence to show that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any defect which is not curable and has not been cured by the appellants.
13. The complainant has not produced any evidence such as the expert evidence to prove that there was any defect in the vehicle. In Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence needed to be produced to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the reported case, it was held that the vehicle having been repeatedly brought to service station for repairs, is no ground to hold that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. In that case of Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobile and another; I (2013) CPJ 47 (NC) also it was held that the report of expert was essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect should have been adduced. It was held that the mere fact that the vehicle was taken to service station for one or two times, does not ipso facto prove manufacturing defect.
14. If a person approaches a Court of law on certain allegations, he should not only plead them with certain precision and description but he also should prove the facts by adducing evidence. The Court can accept a fact as correct when the Opposite Party admits the said fact on the principle that admitted facts need not be proved. The Court can also accept a fact if the same is proved on the basis of some evidence. The degree of proof may vary according to the nature of allegations. In the absence of either of the situations, no presumption can be drawn by the Court simply because in its opinion a fact is true and correct.
15. In the instant case the complainant except filing Ex.A3 and also by stating in the complaint, and in his evidence affidavit and in the legal notice that there were manufacturing defects, did not prove the allegation by producing any material. The documents Exs. A1 to A4 marked on his behalf are only Invoice, Certificate of Registration, Bill/Job Card and copy of legal notice. In the absence of proof the Forum is not correct in holding that a defective vehicle was supplied to the complainant. Similarly having noticed that there is no adequate material with regard to loss of earnings, mental agony, the Forum is not correct in awarding compensation on notional basis.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. In the circumstances discussed supra, the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.9, supra, is answered against the respondent/complainant and in favour of the appellants/opposite parties.
In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum Medak at Sangareddy in C.C.No.12 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016 and consequently the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
20.03.2018
