Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/98/2012

SARAVANAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD., MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

K.S. GANESH BABU

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

   BEFORE                            THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 98/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.183/2009 dated 24.11.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South) ]

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

Mr.Saravanan

S/o Mr.V.Krishnan

D5, Brindavan Avenue

30/4, Vellala street

Mugappair, Chennai 600 037                         ..Appellant/complainant

                                             Vs

1.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd,

Represented by its Manager,

Mahindra Towers, 1^st Floor

17/18, Pattulos Road,

Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

 

2. G.M.S Motors Pvt Ltd,

Represented by its Manager

133, Velacherry Main Road,

Guindy, Chennai 600 032                             ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant   : M/s K.S.Ganesh Babu

Counsel for the Respondents/opp.parties : M/s Shivakumar, Suresh

 

The appellant is the complainant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in CC.No. 183/2009 dated 24.11.2011.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.4.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) this commission made the following order.

 

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBE

       1.    The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

     2.    The complainant purchased a luxury Mahendra 8 seater car on 2.7.2008 from the 2^nd opposite party for which the 1^st opposite party also a dealer.  Eventhough, the complainant only requested for supply of seven seater car,  he was forced to purchase 8 seater car and the 2^nd opposite party delivered the car on 2.7.2008 without fixing the number plate and the vehicle is not at all made road worthy, giving troubles even on the day one on 4.7.2008, when the complainant and his family members proceeded to Neyveli in the car, the engine of the car became over heated and the car was stopped frequently in order to cool the engine and after sending a legal notice on 12.7.2008, the opposite parties promised to change the engine, thereby it amounts to deficiency in service and the consumer complaint came to be filed the claim for replacement of defective car with new one and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-  and Rs.25,000/- as cost.

3.          The 2^nd opposite party remained absent before the District Forum and the 1^st opposite party denied the allegations contending that the repairs  then and there and the complaints meeted out and the engine was replaced and after the same, the vehicle was with the complainant running with good condition till date and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       The District Forum on the basis of both side materials, dismissed the complaint, by accepting the contentions of the opposite party.

5.      Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant had come forward with this appeal alleging the District Forum failed to notice that the complainant was forced to use the vehicle unsatisfactorily forever with defective goods with repair and the replacement of engine was not sufficient and thereby the complaint was erroneously dismissed.

6.       We have heard both side arguments and perused the materials in this regard. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant had purchased 8 seater vehicle on 2.7.2008 and within the period of few months, the vehicle got trouble having over heat in the engine and thereby the engine was replaced with free of cost and in those circumstances whether the replacement of new car is permissible as prayed for, is the point to be considered.

 

7.      The opposite party relied upon the judgment reported in CDJ 2010 (Consumer case) No.1/2012 in which the National Commission held as follows:-

      “The State Commission, has rightly held that the defects mentioned in the job cards which were duly repaired by respondent No.2, cannot by any stretch of imagination be called as indicative of manufacturing defect- NC do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents – Hence, the appeal is dismissed”.   

   as per this view in this case also, even though the vehicle had troubles even from the beginning from the date of purchase as soon as the defect was pointed out  the opposite parties attended the defects and finding that there was defect in the engine and the engine itself was replaced and on the request of the complainant, the earlier engine serial number was also engrossed on the new engine. This is also admitted by the complainant in the grounds of appeal stating by mere replacement of engine was not sufficient satisfaction and on perusal of the opposite parties’ documents Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3. Ex.B.1 and B.2 would go to show that the complainant had ordered for the 8 seater instead of 7 seater vehicle for which alone invoice was raised and on the basis of the same, the vehicle was delivered and thereby the question of plea that the complainant was forced to purchase 8 seater against his will is not at all acceptable and as far as the repairs are concerned under Ex.B.3, after the replacement of the engine, the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 6.6.2009 with full satisfaction and the complaint was filed on 30.1.2009 and even after the vehicle was taken delivery and as per the complainant’s own documents, the engine was replaced on 26.8.2008 as per the service details after running 5004 kms and there after under Ex.A.26, his service was made as per job card, invoice dated 17.4.2010 delivered on 17.4.2010 running 33,532 kms for the regular wear and tear and other engine over all service done and the invoice was raised for Rs.3,498/-. The complainant failed to prove that there was inherent manufacturing defect, even after replacement of engine, the vehicle was having with same defect which needs for replacement with new car by way of any expert evidence and thereby the District Forum by taking into consideration of all relevant material came to the proper conclusion by dismissing the complaint and thereby we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum in this regard and this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit and accordingly,

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in C.C No.183/2009 dated 24.11.2011.

         No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER