THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

APPEAL NO.4616/2010

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

M/s. Action Construction

Equipments Limited,

Unit II, Dhudholla Link Road,                            … Appellant/s

Villate Dhudholla Palwal,

Faridabad-121 102,

Haryana State

Represented by its Managing Director,

(By VMP Law Chambers- Advocate)

V/s

1.      K.Venkatesh

          S/o V.Krishnappa

          Since deceased by his

LRs Smt.M.S.Vidyashree

          W/o late K.Venkatesh,

          Aged about 25 years,

          Residing at No.207,

          Kumbarpet, Malur town

          Koral

2.      M/s. Leo Engineers,

          No.2, 2^nd Floor, Behind Big Market,

          G-Block, Sahankar Nagar,

          Bangalore-92

          Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

          Sri.Narendra Kumar

 (By OP No.1(a)-Sri.A.G.Bopaiah, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Opposite Party in complaint No.96/2007 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Kolar which directed them to pay an amount of Rs.6,83,040/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and submits that the complainant initial filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging manufacturing defects in the vehicle machine ACE Backhoe Loader Ax.130 bearing Registration No.KA-08-M-926. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed them to pay the above said amount. In fact the vehicle which was tendered for repair was repaired as per the complaints given by the complainant. But after repair they instructed the complainant to take the vehicle but the complainant not came forward to take the vehicle. During that time, the financier has seized the vehicle and repossessed the vehicle for non-payment of the loan amount. Such being the case, there is no any deficiency of service or manufacturing defects found in the vehicle. But the District Consumer Commission without considering the said defence has allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the above said amount, which is not in accordance with law. Hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission.       

2. Heard from both parties.

3. On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and documents produced before the District Consumer Commission, we noticed here that, the complainant alleged manufacturing defects and filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging that the Opposite Parties have sold the vehicle which had manufacturing defects and due to said manufacturing defect he was not able to utilize the said vehicle for his purpose, during the warranty period the vehicle was repaired twice. Even after repair the problem was persistent, subsequently left the vehicle for repair, but the Opposite Parties have not handed over the vehicle after repair. Hence alleged manufacturing defects and prayed for payment of the entire amount paid by him. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.6,83,040/-. The said matter was brought through appeal vide No.552/2009 by the appellant and appeal was remanded back and provided an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and to produce documents. After remand the complainant has produced certain documents and after considering the said documents, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint, against the said order this appellant before this Commission. We noticed here that after purchase, the vehicle was placed for repairs and subsequently on 1-4-2007 the vehicle was once again broken and 16-4-2007 the vehicle was taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party for repair, the said vehicle was still with the 2^nd Opposite Party. After repair during that junction of time, the financer had seized the vehicle and took possession for recovery of the loan amount. The said facts were brought to the knowledge of the District Consumer Commission. After knowing all these facts, the District Consumer Commission has directed this appellant to pay Rs.6,83,040/-. We found the order passed by the District Consumer Commission has no basis, when the vehicle was repaired by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the question of manufacturing defects does not arise. We noticed here that, the vehicle was repaired for the alleged complaints in the vehicle by the complainant when such being the case, award for Rs.6,83,040/- towards unfair trade practice for selling defective vehicle does not arise at all. The complainant was no more owner of the vehicle when it was seized by the financier, as such complainant cannot allege any manufacturing defects or refund of the amount from the appellant. Hence, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission lacks legality. We are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is irregular and not in accordance with law, as such it requires to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-  

O R D E R

The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. 

The impugned order 29.09.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolar in CC.No.96/2007 is set-aside.  Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party. 

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

Member                                                      Judicial Member