Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below i.e. State Commission Rajasthan in appeal No. 1826/2003 and District Forum, Sri Ganganagar in Complaint Case No.34/2000, the original party – Tata Engineering & Locomotives Co. Ltd., the manufacturer of the chassis in question has filed the present petitions. The complaint before the District Forum was filed alleging manufacturing defects in a Tata Bus Chassis purchased by the complainant on 14.7.1997 for a price of Rs.3,97,557/-. The purchase of the vehicle carried a warranty against the manufacturing defects for a period of three years or running of the vehicle upto 3 lakh kilo meters whichever was earlier. The complainant built up bus body on the said chassis and started running the same. According to the complainant, within the warranty period, i.e. on 5.8.99, while the bus was being plied, the chassis of the bus broke down which the opposite party / dealer / manufacturer failed to replace. Therefore, the complaint was filed claiming the replacement of the chassis or return of the price with compensation. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties denying any manufacturing defect(s) in the vehicle. Even the factum of breaking of the chassis was denied. However, going by the respective pleas, evidence and material, in particular, a report obtained by the District Forum from an authorized Service Station of Telco dated 19.6.2003, the District Forum returned a finding that chassis of the vehicle was broken during the warranty period and, therefore, it was a manufacturing defect. Therefore, the opposite parties were liable to replace the chassis. Some compensation was also awarded. In appeal, the State Commission confirmed the said finding as based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence and material brought on record. 2. We have heard Mr.Aditya Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Subhashini, learned counsel representing the respondents. Mr. Aditya Narain, Learned counsel representing the petitioner – manufacturer would assail the findings of the fora below primarily on the ground that the same are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence and material brought on record. In regard to the report of the Telco Service Station dated 19.6.2003 filed during the pendency of the complaint, he submits that the said report could not be relied and acted upon as it did not depict the correct picture as could have been at the relevant time i.e during August 1999 when the complainant claims that the chassis had broken down. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / complainant has invited our attention to another report of one Dharam Pal Gupta, an Electrical Engineer who purportedly examined the vehicle in November 1999 and gave a report on examination of the vehicle in which there is some indication about the breaking of chassis and manufacturing defects. It appears that the said report and the affidavit filed by Dharam Pal Gupta has not received the consideration of the fora below. This report does not find a passing reference either in the order of the District Forum or the State Commission. Therefore, in our view, it would be expedient if the matter is reconsidered by the concerned District Forum afresh taking into account the entire evidence and material which has been produced and any further evidence which may be produced by the parties. 3. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the orders passed by the fora below are hereby set aside. The complaint is remitted back to the board of the District Forum for deciding the same afresh in above terms and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.04.2011 for receiving further directions in the matter. A sum of Rs.4 lakh deposited in the District Forum shall under the directions of this Commission abide the final outcome of the complaint. |
