Oral
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1228 of 2008
M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mahidnra
Tower, Faizabad Road, Lucknow through its
Area Manager. …Appellant.
Versus
1- Krishna Nand Misra s/o Sri Laxmi Shankar Misra,
R/o Village Babhnauti Ismaila, Post, Uchetha,
District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi)
2- M/s Agarwal Auto Sales, Authorized Sale
Service and spare part Dealer, Mahindra
Vehicles, Peeli Kothi, Mirzapur-231001 .…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.
Sri K.N.Shukla, Ld. counsel for the appellant.
Sri Rajeev Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Date 17.9.2024
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) in complaint case no.396 of 2003, Krishna Nand Misra vs. M/s Agarwal Auto Sales & 2 others, whereby the ld. District Forum by allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties/appellant to change the vehicle in question within 45 days from the date of judgment. In alternative directed to pay Rs.4 lacs as damages to the complainant.
As per the case of the complainant, he has purchased Mahindra DI 3200 vehicle from the opposite party/respondent no.2 on 13.9.2000. The warranty of the vehicle was effective for the period of one year, irrespective of the running kilometers. After purchasing the vehicle gear box, engine and radiator developed problems within a month and consumption of mobile old was enhanced and the engine started heating frequently. On complaint respondent no.2 assured to remove the defects. The vehicle was handed over to the respondent no.2 at his work-shop. After inspection, he accepted the fault in vehicle and assured to inform the company and get the replacement of the vehicle. The complainant also wrote letter to the company on 19.4.2001. The Engineers of the company advised to bring the vehicle to work-shop at the respondent no.2. On 3.7.2001, the respondent no.2 informed the complainant that new engine has been received from the company and he may bring his vehicle to the work-shop to replace the engine.
The opposite party no.2 and 3 filed their joint written statement and admitted the change of engine. The defendants also admitted that the change of radiator and gear box, the complainant was informed through letters dated 25.11.2002 and 5.12.2002 but the complainant never handed over the vehicle at the work-shop for repair. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and defendants never committed any deficiency in providing the service to the complainant.
Upon consideration the evidence filed by the rival parties, the ld. District Consumer forum ordered accordingly as mentioned above.
This judgment and order is challenged on the ground that the judgment is arbitrary, illegal, illogical and unjustified. Although admitted that one year warranty was given but qualified that this warranty was given conditionally according to operator’s manual and the complainant violated the warranty condition and he did not avail free services as per warranty condition and vehicle has been plied for commercial purposes carelessly and running properly.
We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order alongwith evidence available on record.
As per case of the complainant, he purchased the vehicle in question on 13.9.2000 and on perusal of the document no.35, a registered letter addressed to the complainant, it appears that after getting information of heavy consumption of mobile oil by the vehicle, engine was changed on 27.11.201 and this letter is written on 25.11.2002 in correspondence of letter dated 15.11.2002 written by the complainant.
The complainant informed through this letter that we were intended to surrender the whole vehicle but he changed the engine only and warranted again that if the engine do not perform properly then it will be changed again. All the correspondences between the parties established this fact that the engine of vehicle was changed by the appellant company while the complainant intended to surrender the whole vehicle being defective and creating hurdle just after purchasing the vehicle.
The ld. District Consumer Forum has discussed all the evidence which was available on record and as per the evidence concluded that there was a permanent defect in the vehicle, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum is based upon the efficient appreciation of evidence. Hence, no interfere is required.
Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the ld. District Consumer Forum awarded Rs.4 lacs as compensation. This amount should be set aside but on perusal of the judgment, it appears that the ld. District Consumer Forum never awarded Rs.4 lacs as damages or penalty, this order is an alternative order if the appellant company wishes to change the vehicle then alternative part of the order need not to be performed. As there is no ambiguity in this regard, if the appellant company opt to comply the first part of the order then there is no need to comply the second part of the order. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) in complaint case no.396 of 2003 is confirmed.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Consumer Forum concerned as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sudha Upadhyay) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA I
Court 2
