AT  HYDERABAD.

FA   711 of 2011   against C.C.  285/2009,  Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad  

Between:

G. Ganesh Kumar         

S/o.  Chandra Shekhara Gupta

Age: 24 years, Student

R/o. MHA 110, UCH,

Gachibowli, Hyderabad                                ***                           Appellant/

                                                                                                  Complainant.

                                                                   And

1)  Hero Vardhaman

Ashish Orchide

3-5-170/8/1/1&2

Opp. Water Tank,

Naryanaguda, Hyderabad.

Rep. by its Manager

2)  Hero Exports

50,  Okhla Industrial Estate-III

New Delhi.

Rep. by its Managing Director

3)  Ultra Motor India (P) Ltd.

Industrial Estate-III

New Delhi

Rep. by its Managing Director                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops.

Counsel for the Appellants:                        M/s. Chandrasekhara Gupta Gelli.

Counsel for the Respondent:                      Admission Stage.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO,  PRESIDENT

                                                                   &

                                            SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER

TUESDAY, THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF  SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ELVEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that   this matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2)                Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

3)                The complainant filed a complaint against the dealer  and manufacturer of  Hero Ultra Velocity- Electric vehicle respectively  with a prayer to replace the vehicle with a new one  and supply correct certificate of registration besides  Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards transport charges and Rs. 6,000/- towards costs.

4)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased  Hero Ultra Velocity- Electric vehicle   from Op1 on 24.3.2008 with a warranty of one year.   Since the date of purchase  he encountered with several problems with regard to  front portion disc break, centre stand, indicators locking and seat, some parts of the vehicle  were rusticated besides charger problem.   Despite several free and paid services  the opposite parties could not  succeed in making the vehicle trouble free.  It was a defective one.   On   5.3.2009  when the vehicle gave trouble  and was not running he immediately informed to them   but  they did not get it rectified up till 12.3.2009.   After repeated phone calls  it sent a mechanic on 14.3.2009 to get it repaired but to no avail.    Registration Certificate  (R.C) was also not rectified.    His father’s name was wrongly mentioned as   Chandra Gupta instead of Chandra Shekhar Gupta.   Signature of owner of the vehicle  was also wrongly appeared as ‘Basha’ in Telugu.   Since there were manufacturing defects he intends the vehicle be replaced with a new one besides other  reliefs,   which we have already adverted to.

5)                 Op1  the  dealer/seller  resisted the case.  It alleged that  the complaint is mis-conceived, legally untenable, and liable to be dismissed in the view of the that  there was neither manufacturing defect nor  any material defect in the vehicle.    In fact  the vehicle met with an accident and as such some of the components were damaged.   It gave some minor problems.   The complainant only after satisfying  with the vehicle purchased it.   The warranty is for 365 days or 12,000 KMs  whichever is earlier.   The battery has warranty of 180 days or  6,000 KMs  whichever occurs earlier.   The allegation that there were problems  in front portion disc break, centre stand, indicators locking,  and also rust to parts of the vehicle etc., are all false.   Though there was no fault in the charger  it was changed two times  only as a  goodwill gesture without charging any amount as it was under warranty.  Whenever, any  minor problem was complained they were rectified  immediately.   In fact it  plied  7,115 KMs  by  19.1.2009.   This shows that there were no defects.    When he complained on  5.3.2009,   it was verified on 12.3.2009, and   was found that it met with an accident.   It  immediately sent a mechanic  who  checked the vehicle.  When the complainant misbehaved with the mechanic a police complaint was given on 21.4.2009 and the same was registered as Crime No. 193/2009.  There were no manufacturing defects.   It denied that it has supplied incorrect  R.C.    He himself filled the application before the authorities.   Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6)                 Op2 equally resisted the case stating that it has no concern.    It was the dealer  for sale of vehicles manufactured by Op3.   It has no concern with the vehicle sold  by Op3, and therefore  it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7)                 Op3 did not choose to contest the matter, and therefore it was set-exparte. 

8)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked while the opposite parties filed their affidavit evidence.

9)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant did not file the job card  nor adduced any evidence to show that there was defect  in the charger or any of the components  in the vehicle.    Having purchased it as long back as on 24.3.2008  and having run the vehicle for a pretty long time  he cannot seek a new vehicle.    Equally  he was not entitled to any compensation or costs.  However,  in view of the fact that there was a mistake in the name in the R.C.  the Dist. Forum directed Op1 to co-operate  in getting the name changed in the R.C.

10)               Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.  It did not appreciate the fact that the opposite parties did not even contest the matter.  Therefore he prayed that the vehicle be replaced with a new one.

11)               The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

12)               It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased Hero Ultra Velocity- Electric vehicle   on 24.3.2008  evidenced under invoice Ex. A1.  It was registered in his name  vide Ex. A3.  However,  the name of  his father  is noted as C.  Gupta.  Under the signature of the owner it looks as though  one Basha had signed.    Obviously since mistakes have crept in  and the same could be  corrected with  the co-operation of Op1.  Therefore   the order of the Dist. Forum asking  Op1 to co-operate cannot be faulted. 

13)               While the complainant alleges that  there were manufacturing defects  in the vehicle Op1 distributor denies the same.    Ex. A6 is the card showing that  he had taken the vehicle  for three free services and two paid services.   It is also not in dispute that charger was replaced as it was within the warranty period.   The complainant  did not dispute that the vehicle ran for 7,115 KMs  by 19.1.2009.  The terms and conditions show that the vehicle  is covered by  warranty for a period of  365 days or 12,000 KMs  whichever is earlier.   The battery has warranty of 180 days or  6,000 KMs  whichever occurs earlier.    The complainant alleges that there were manufacturing defects  in front portion disc break, centre stand, indicators locking, and  seat.   He also found  rust  in some parts of the vehicle.   He did not mention  as to when he found these defects.   As rightly opined by the Dist. Forum  the complainant did not even file the job card to show that he complained about the defects for the above said parts. 

14)               At the cost of repetition, we may state that  Ex. A6 card does not disclose that there was defect.  The complainant for the reasons best known  did not take the vehicle to an expert or mechanic  to evaluate the so called defects, and  filed his affidavit  to prove that those defects were manufacturing defects.   Except his affidavit there is no other evidence to state there are defects.   When Op1 went  to  the  extent of  giving a  report to the police  when the complaint mis-behaved with  his mechanic,     he did not controvert the said fact.  It looks as though the complainant intends to get a new vehicle  for the old one  alleging that  there were some manufacturing defects.  However, the complainant  had failed to prove  that there was manufacturing defect which needs replacement of  vehicle with a new one.    He having used the vehicle for about one year he could not have claimed a new vehicle.  He could not have ran it for one year if really there  were manufacturing defects.   When the warranty is coming to close  by  three days,   he filed the complaint.    Even then he could not prove that there was some manufacturing defect. The vehicle was running  even now.  Had there been manufacturing defect  he could not have used it for one year.   .   The Dist. Forum has rightly negatived  the reliefs.  We do not see any merits in the complaint

15)               In the result the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

06/09/2011

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.