Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/14/141

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA TWO WHEELS - Complainant(s)

Versus

/HARISH CHANDRA MODI - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2020

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

RP No. 141 / 2014.

 

Mahindra & Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd.,

Mahindra Towers P.K. Kurne Chouk,

Worli, Mumbai                                                                      …. PETITIONER.

 

 

                        Versus

 

Harish Chandra Modi & Anr.                                             …. RESPONDENTS.

 

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

 

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

                                   

 

25.8.2020                  Ms. Akriti Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                    None for the respondents.

                                    Heard. 

                        2.         This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sheopur (for short the “District Commission”) in Execution Case No.66/2012/2013.

                        3.         Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent no.1 had filed a consumer complaint No.66/2012 before the District Commission, Sheopur alleging therein that he had purchased a Duro scooter for Rs.42,099/-.  However, as there was defect in regard to the mileage of the

- 2 -

 

Scooter as the scooter was giving average of 20 kilometers per litre as against average 40 to 45 kilometer per litre as was claimed and assured by the petitioner / opposite party the complaint had to file a consumer complaint.  The District Commission after considering the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties vide order dated 16.7.2013 directed the petitioner / opposite party to repair the said scooter without charging for the same.  It also directed that in case it is not repaired it has to pay the price of the vehicle to the respondent no.1 / complainant with interest @7% p.a.  In addition Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost was also imposed on the petitioner.

                        4.         According to the petitioner in compliance of the said order the complainant’s vehicle was repaired.  A note / remark dated 15.8.2013 was signed by the first respondent / complainant to that effect was also produced as Ex. P-3.  Thereafter again on 27.8.2013 the vehicle was brought by the respondent for checking.  It was again repaired and the average was checked by the mechanic of the petitioner in the presence of the first respondent / complainant.  The average was found to be 45 kilomters per litre.  The respondent / complainant again put a note in regard to his satisfaction about the average.  The said note dated 27.8.2013 is available on record Ex. P/4.  Both the aforesaid documents Ex. P/3 and P/4 clearly indicate that the vehicle was duly repaired and the average of the same was found to be 45 kilometers per litre.  The said documents, Ex. P/3 and P/4 bear the signatures of the first

 

• 3 -

 

respondent / complainant.  In the circumstances, learned District Commission in our considered view has erred in directing the petitioner to pay the price of the vehicle with interest.  When the satisfaction note, Ex. P/3 and Ex.P/4 clearly indicates that the original complaint  regarding the average consumption of fuel and mileage being less than that of which was claimed was satisfied, there was no occasion for the District Commission to pass the impugned order.

                        5.         In the result by allowing this revision petition, we set-aside the impugned order.  So far as other money part of the original order is concerned, we record the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has already been complied with.    

 

 

                          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)                                                 (S.S. Bansal)      

           ^{PRESIDENT                                                                                        MEMBER}   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phadke