Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1029

VIRENDRA K.RAMPURIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FORCE MOTORS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.SURESH INDOREKAR

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 1029 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 08.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.289/2015 by District Commission, Indore)

 

VIRENDRA KUMAR RAMPURIYA.                                                                    …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

FORCE MOTOR LTD. THROUGH MANAGER

AND OTHERS.                                                                                                  …         RESPONDENTS.

                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE SHRI S.S.BANSAL                                        :      MEMBER

                   HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK                                             :       MEMBER

 

                             

                                      O R D E R

 

09.09.2022

 

            Shri Suresh Indorekar, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri J. S. Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2.

            None for the respondent no.3 though served.

                                   

As per Dr. Monika Malik :                       

            This appeal arises out of the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.289/2015 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant holding that the complainant/appellant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle. It is thus held that there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

2.                Briefly put facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that on 12.05.2012, he had purchased an ‘SUV Force-1’ bearing registration

-2-

number MP-09 CE-6283, from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.11,26,471/-. It is alleged that immediately after its purchase, the vehicle started giving troubles and despite efforts on different occasions, it could not be repaired by the opposite parties. The vehicle is still with the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of price of vehicle i.e Rs.11,26,471/-, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs Rs.5,000/-

4.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted that the subject vehicle was left for repair work in their workshop, by the complainant/appellant. They had repaired the subject vehicle and the complainant/appellant may take back the same.

5.                The District Commission has already recorded a finding in this regard in the impugned order.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondent no.1 and 2 shall deliver the subject vehicle to the complainant/appellant.

6.                We are of the view that in the interest of justice, matter be remanded back to the District Commission.  The District Commission if deems fit, may appoint a Commissioner to inspect whether the subject vehicle has been properly repaired and is in working condition subject to terms and conditions of warranty.

 

-3-

8.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 20.10.2022.

9.                With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

 

  (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal) (Dr.Monika Malik) 

               President                        Member                Member