BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

APPEAL No.1671/2013

M/s. Escorts Ltd.,

A Company Incorporated and

Registered under Companies Act, 1956

Having its corporate office at                    ... Appellant/s

          15/5, Mathura Road,

          Faridabad-Haryana,

          Pincode-121003

          Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

          Sri.Prabhath Kumar

(By Sri.Ganesh Bhat.Y.H, Advocate)

-V/s-

1.      Mr.Mahendranath.S.T,

          Aged about 33 years,

          Son of S.R.Thippeswamy,

          Residing at Chikkagodnahalli

          Village, Chitradurga Taluk,

          Chitradurga District,

          Karnataka State                                        … Respondent/s

          Also at: No.197, Kudahalli

          Government Higher Primary School,

          Hiriyur-577596

          Chitradurga District

          Karnataka State   

2.      Proprietor of M/s. Muneer,

Construction Equipment,

Sy.No.174/2, Behind

Muneer Cars, Sanklapur,

Bellary Road, Hospet-583 201

                                                                   … Respondent/s

3.      Mr.Kayum,

Sales Manager at

M/s. Muneer Construction

Equipment, Residing at

Opp: JCB Showroom,

National Highway Road,

Post Chitradurga

 (R1- By Sri.Pramod, Advocate)

(R2 & R3-Notice duly served-absent)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Chitradurga in CC.No.17/2013 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainant is the RC holder and owner of Escorts EMVEQP (Dig Max) vehicle bearing Engine No.443205/1120693 and chassis No.610B118820 and purchased from the 1^st Opposite Party showroom on 10.2.2012 by paying Rs.18,75,000/- by way of cash and DD and the same has been registered before the RTO Chitradurga. After getting possession of the said vehicle when put to use, the complainant found manufacturing defects like hospipe oil leakage, swing cylinder oil leakage, dowty seal, oaring problems and the same was complied with the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party sent one Shivaraj, Service Engineer who came and repaired the vehicle and gave report. Subsequently on several times, the complainant found more problems in the said vehicle and each time the Opposite Party send service engineer to repair the vehicle, the said engineer repaired the vehicle and gave report. Due to the above defects, the complainant was not in a position to extract work from the vehicle and suffered the financial loss and mental agony as he invested huge amount of Rs.18.00 lakhs and more. The above said defects in the vehicle cannot be rectified and even there is expert service engineer of the 2^nd Opposite Party have failed in their efforts to rectify defects. Hence, the complainant request for replacement of the vehicle with new one. However in spite of several requests the Opposite Parties have not complied the same. Hence, this complaint.  

3. On service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Party No.1 and 3 not appeared and placed exparte. The 2^nd Opposite Party manufacturer has appeared through his counsel and filed version and admitted certain allegations of the complainant and denied all other allegations. The 2^nd Opposite Party further contended that all the said problems in the vehicle are minor problems due to wear and tear and mishandling by untrained drivers and it is not a manufacturing defect and also contended that some parts have also been replaced and immediately on receipt of the complaint from complainant on the said dates attended by experienced service engineers. So there is no negligence on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party. Further contended that the complainant has removed the hour meter of the vehicle and continuously used the same and got the financial benefits from the vehicle and filed a false complaint. As per the service engineer report, the vehicle was running without hour meter and machine worked without hour meter from 25-12-2012 and it was worked more than 2000 hours. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part and prays to dismiss the complaint.   

4. After trial, the District Commission has allowed the complaint in part along with compensation and litigation expenses.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

6. Heard arguments from both sides.

7. Perused the appeal memo and the order passed by the District Consumer Commission; we noticed that it is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 has purchased a Escorts EMVEQP (Dig Max) machine vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16-M-7495 on 10-2-2012 for Rs.18,75,000/-. It is also not in dispute that, the vehicle has some problems in its working and on receipt of the complaint, the service engineers have attended the same and replaced some parts at the cost of the appellant every time but repeatedly problems were occurred for period from 3-3-2012 to 12-2-2013. The allegations of the respondent is that, the said vehicle has a manufacturing defects like Hospipe oil leakage, swing cylinder oil leakage, dowty seal, oaring problems was initially found in the vehicle and the same was brought to the notice of the appellant. Ofcourse the service engineers attended the same every time and tried to rectify the defects and replaced some parts and changed some parts as per requirements free of costs. However the problem was not rectified fully by the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3.

8. Per-contra, the appellant contended that the defects solved by the appellant are minor defect and problems are due to mishandling by untrained drivers. Moreover, the respondent No.1 used the vehicle without hour meter more than 2000 hours instead of 500 hours and got income. Hence the complaint is not maintainable.

9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, Ex.A2 report of the service engineer of appellant indicates that problems in the vehicle were started in the short period of purchasing the vehicle and the same was brought repaired by the respondent No.2 by 21 times which is the admitted facts. The District Commission has rightly passed the order after appreciating the materials placed on record, because initially the problem was started in the vehicle on 3.3.2012 and it was continues repeatedly upto 12.2.2013. It was serviced on various dates upto 12.2.2013. The appellant contended that the accident has taken place to the vehicle and hence the problem was started in the vehicle. However the accident was taken place on 8-6-2012 and initial problem was noticed in the vehicle on 3-3-2012 before the accident which reflects that the vehicle is having problem from initial which cannot be rectified by the respondent No.2 after so many services. Moreover the said 25 reports of the engineer of the 2^nd respondent and photographs produced by the 1^st respondent shows that minor and major defects were in the vehicle and it can be rectified. Moreover there is nothing on the record to show that the 1^st respondent had used the vehicle more than 2000 hours instead of 500 hours. Ofcourse the respondent No.1 had alleged that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle then he has to prove by expert evidence and even if we considered that the alleged problems are minor, the appellant had not produced any documents to show that, the problems noticed by the appellant at the time of servicing were minor, the said problem would be solved.      

10. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-        

O R D E R

The appeal is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

The impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; Chitradurga in CC.No.17/2013 is hereby confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

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

SMT.SUNITA C.BAGEWADI                SRI.RAVI SHANKAR

                  (Lady Member)                            (Judicial Member)