Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes and exception to an order dated 29.07.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.101/2009, Shri Shivram Gopal Mhadalkar V/s. Divisional Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sindhudurg.
(2) Consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service in respect of the vehicle purchased, manufactured by Tata Motors Ltd. Said consumer complaint stood dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby the Complainant preferred this appeal. It may be pointed out that there is direction imposing cost of `10,000/- on Opponent No.1, Divisional Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. But, it is submitted that they have already complied with the said direction and they have not filed any appeal.
(3) This appeal is adjourned from time to time for hearing on admission. On 13.03.2012 Appellant and their Counsel remained absent and by way of last chance it is adjourned for today. Today one Advocate Mr.C.S. Patil, is present but without any authority from the Advocate on record. Therefore, his presence is not entertained. Nobody else from the Appellant is present. Heard Ld.Counsel for the Respondent on admission. Perused the record.
(4) In the instant case, admittedly, the vehicle ‘Tata Winger’, bearing No.MH-07-Q-1300 was purchased on 15.12.2008 by the Appellant/Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’). Said vehicle was purchased from the dealer M/s.Bafna Motors (R) Pvt. Ltd., Janavali, Kankavli. It is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that during the warranty there was a problem with the gear box and which was replaced by the manufacturer. On 05.03.2009 there was problem with the escalator cable and which was rectified subsequently on 28.05.2009, speedometer of the vehicle was not functioning and there was a problem with the alienation of the tyres. It is further alleged that parts of the vehicle were not functioning properly. However, in spite of these allegations, it appears, the earlier two defects were got rectified. As far as allegation that speedometer was not functioning, nothing has been stated as to why it was not functioning. Similarly, as far as wheel alignment is concerned, it cannot be a manufacturing defect. In the circumstances, per se, from the material placed on record, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opponents.
(5) Besides that, the vehicle is purchased by the Complainant for his business of construction and is used perhaps illegally for transport of the passengers. These objections were taken by the Respondents/Opponents on the ground that the vehicle purchased was luxury vehicle and it is neither a passenger vehicle nor a goods traveler. In our view, all the allegations raised by the Opponents, since, factual situation in respect of user of the vehicle is within the knowledge of the Complainant, it is for him to establish his case throwing light on these aspects. In the circumstances, the observations of the Forum, per se, in that respect cannot be accepted. However, since the complaint itself is dismissed, the issue itself is not at all relevant.
(6) For the reasons stated above, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.
In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 30th July, 2012.
