STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.    384 of 2020

Date of Institution:  22.10.2020

Date of Decision:    04.11.2020

Mahindra   & Mahindra Limited,    Gateway       Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 039 through its Authorised Signatory.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Jagdish Chander son of Ram Narain, resident of Village Danger, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

 Respondent No.1-Complainant

2.      M/s Garg Motors, Dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, 9 K.M. Stone, Hisar Road, near Sikandarpur Chowk, Sirsa through its Proprietor/Partners.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

3.      M/s Garg Motors, Opp. J.C. Mills, Sirsa Road, Fatehabad through its proprietor/partner.

Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.3

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

Present:     Shri Vaibhav Narang, counsel for the appellant.

O R D E R

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      Opposite party No.1-Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (Manufacturer) has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad whereby complaint preferred by complainant Jagdish Chander was allowed and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer of the vehicle in question directed to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle of the same brand and also to make payment of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant.

3.      According to the complainant, he had purchased a Scorpio Jeep of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited from opposite party No.2-M/s Garg Motors, dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited on 22.05.2015 for Rs.12,20,000/-.  The vehicle was purchased from the office of opposite parties situated at Fatehabad.  The complainant used to park the vehicle under the roof and during the period of parking, the vehicle used to be properly covered.  However, inspite of above said fact, the front body part and windows of the vehicle got affected with rust and as such the complainant took the vehicle in question to opposite party No.2 on 18.04.2017.  After inspection of the vehicle, opposite party No.2 told the complainant that after removing the rust, paint shall be done on the vehicle.  The complainant did not accept the proposal as it would have resulted into the loss of originality of the vehicle.  It was thus clear that a new vehicle was not sold by the opposite parties.  The complainant served legal notice upon the opposite parties requesting them to replace the vehicle with a new one but all in vain.  This act on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while selling the vehicle to the complainant.  The opposite parties were accordingly required to replace the vehicle in question with a new one alongwith an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

4.      Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared before the learned District Consumer Forum and filed written version raising various preliminary objections.  On merits, it was submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.2.  However, it was denied that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of opposite party No.1.  Further, the vehicle in question was purchased on 22.05.2015 and had there been any manufacturing defect, it could have surfaced during the initial days.  However, the complaint had been filed after the passage of about two years, which meant that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It was also submitted that the defect of rusting was not covered under the warranty.  On the other hand, it was clearly mentioned in the warranty policy that any slight discrepancy in the paint, chrome and trim was corrected during the PDI.  Deterioration of appearance items and trim, due to normal exposure or use was not covered under the terms of warranty.  Though the complainant had sought replacement of the vehicle yet in the complaint, the complainant did not allege manufacturing defect.  As such, it was admitted by the complainant himself that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant accordingly did not deserve any relief from the Forum.  As the complainant miserably failed to point out any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the rust in the vehicle in question had occurred due to mishandling of the vehicle by the complainant himself, the complaint be dismissed.

5.      Opposite parties No.2 & 3 filed joint written version and resisted the complaint by taking preliminary objections.  On merits, all the allegations made in the complaint were denied.  It was contended that the rust on the vehicle had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the complainant and he had made false pleadings in his complaint.  The complainant did not serve any notice to opposite parties No.2 & 3 nor he approached them with regard to defect in the vehicle, as mentioned by him in the complaint.  The complaint was without any merits and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

6.      In his evidence, the complainant tendered affidavit (Exhibit C1/A) and documents (Exhibits C2 to C4), Mark A, Mark C/B to Mark C/1 whereas opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit (Exhibit RW1) of Nagraj Bhatt, Authorized Signatory of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited and document (Exhibit R1).

7.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint by directing opposite party No.1 being manufacturer of the vehicle in question, to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle of the same brand and requiring the complainant to handover the vehicle to the opposite parties and opposite party No.1 also required to make payment of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Works Manager in his report dated 24.09.2019 could not definitely say that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect.  The defect of rust was not covered under the warranty as the rust could take place on account of climatic conditions, parking, kind of water used for cleaning and washing.  The vehicle in question was defective because of rust, on account of negligence and poor maintenance on the part of complainant himself.  As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in rendering services to the complainant.

9.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the learned District Consumer Forum had directed the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad Depot to depute Works Manager or any other Automobile Engineer to examine the vehicle in question and to give opinion as to whether the above said vehicle was having any inherent manufacturing defect or as to whether the rust on the vehicle was on account of manufacturing defect or on account of not maintaining the vehicle properly.  This direction was issued by the learned District Consumer Forum after taking consent of both the parties.  In compliance of the directions so issued, the Works Manager after issuing notice to both the parties, inspected the vehicle and submitted the report, which reads as under:-

          “Surface of the upperside of the bonnet of the vehicle and ceiling point of the bonnet was found affected from rust and due to rust small holes have occurred in the bonnet.  From the holes in the bonnet, it seems that it is on account of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.”

10.    In view of the report of the Works Manager, as mentioned above, it can safely be held that it was a case of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.  If that be so, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum whereby the appellant was directed to replace the vehicle in question with new one of the same brand and at the same time, the complainant directed to handover the vehicle in question to the opposite parties and thereafter new vehicle to be handed over to the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.  Further, opposite party No.1 has rightly been required to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant.

11.    Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

  U.K.