Haryana

StateCommission

A/1029/2016

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAGAN DEEP DHILLON - Opp.Party(s)

TEJINDER SINGH

08 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                                   First Appeal No  :   1029 of 2016

Date of Institution:  28.10.2016

                                                                   Date of Decision:   08.05.2017

 

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai, through its Vice President Mr. A. Vishwanath.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party No.4

Versus

 

1.      Gagan Deep Dhillon, # D-220, Max Heights Apartment, Kundli, Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      PP Automobiles Private Limited, Nirmal Motor Building, Meerut Road, Karnal -132001 (Haryana) through its Proprietor.

3.      PP Automobiles Private Limited, NH-119/4 KM Stone, Opposite Hotel New World, GT Road, Karnal-132001 (Haryana)

4.      PP Automobiles Private Limited, Bahalgar Road, Opposite Fazilpur House, Kundli, Sonepat (Haryana).

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

Argued by :         Mr. Mayur Kanwar, Advocate for the appellant

                   Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate for the respondent No.1

                   (Service of respondents No.2 to 4 dispensed with vide order dated March 03^rd, 2017)

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, Mahindra and Mahindra Limited-opposite party No.4 (for short, ‘Manufacturer’) has challenged the order dated September 28^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed the manufacturer to replace the vehicle bearing registration No.HR11F-4089 owned by Gagan Deep Dhillon-complainant because it was a defective piece or to pay Rs.4,00,000/- in lump sum as compensation to the complainant. 

2.      On September 30^th, 2014 the complainant purchased a vehicle of Mahindra Scorpio make bearing registration No.No.HR11F-4089 for Rs.10,43,517/- from PP Automobiles Private Limited, Kundli, Sonepat-opposite party No.3 (Authorized Dealer).  After a few days of its purchase, the complainant noticed some defects in the vehicle. He approached the opposite parties but the defects could not be removed.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      The opposite parties No.1 to 3, in their, written version pleaded that the service of the vehicle was done to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The defects pointed out by the complainant were rectified by the team of the opposite parties.  There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The opposite party No.4-Manufacturer, in its, written version pleaded that the complainant did not follow the instructions/guidelines mentioned in the owner’s manual.  The complainant purchased the vehicle on October 09^th, 2014 and till February 27^th, 2016, the vehicle had covered 50496 kilometres.  This fact proved that the vehicle was in roadworthy condition.  Any issue raised by the complainant, was duly resolved to his satisfaction.  Remaining contents of the complaint were denied.    

5.      It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties.  During the warranty period, some defects were developed in the vehicle.  The vehicle was inspected by Engineer Satya Pal, B. Tech (Mechanical Engineering).  He submitted his report (Annexure A-7) whereby he opined that the engine of the vehicle had got inherent manufacturing defect and only remedy was replacement of vehicle.   In rebuttal thereto, the manufacturer did not lead any evidence to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 

6.      During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the complainant has already sold the vehicle, so, the question of replacement of vehicle as ordered by the District Forum does not arise.  In view of this, he only claims compensation. 

7.      In face of it, learned counsel for the manufacturer has urged that the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the complainant may be reduced.

8.      Submission made by both the counsel is convincing.  The price of the new vehicle was Rs.10,43,517/-.  The vehicle had run 50496 kms.  It was used by the complainant for about two years.  He has already sold the vehicle.  In view of all these factors, the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is certainly on higher side and requires to be reduced.  In considered opinion of this Commission, Rs.35,000/-, that is, Rs.25,000/- towards harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses would be just and reasonable. This being so, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the manufacturer shall pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant and except for the modification, the impugned order is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. 

 

Announced 08.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

    U.K