DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 27 of  2023

 

 

Sri Pradip Chakraborty,

S/O- Late Jitendra Chakraborty,

Madhuban, Kathaltali, School Para,

P.O. Dukli, P.S. Amtali, 

District- West Tripura-799003. ...........Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

 

 

2. Tarasankar Motor Pvt. Ltd.,

 

 

3. Tarasankar Motor Pvt. Ltd.,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For  the  O.P. No. 1 : Exparte.

 

For the O.P. No.2 

& 3 : Sri Bhaskar Deb,

    Smt. Monoswita Ghosh,

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Sri Pradip Chakraborty of Dukli, West Tripura(here-in-after called the 'Complainant') against (1) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Pune, Maharastra (here-in-after called the 'O.P. No.1') and (2) Tarasankar Motors Pvt. Ltd.(Authorized Dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.), Chinaihani, Agartala, Tripura West(here-in-after called the 'O.P. No.2') & (3) Tarasankar Motors Pvt. Ltd.(Authorized Dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.), Bagbassa, Dharmanagar, North Tripura(here-in-after called 'the O.P. No.3') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

1.1 The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant purchased a truck vehicle of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra company from O.P. No.2 & 3 for Rs.22,66,875/- on down payment of Rs. 7 lakhs from the financier, Axis Bank, Dhaleswar Branch. The vehicle was registered vide registration No- TR 01 AP 1659. On the first day of the plying of the vehicle on road serious manufacturing defect was detected as the vehicle was not plying properly. Being informed O.P. No.2 & 3 acknowledged defect in the gear box and sent for the replacement gear box assembly which was replaced after about a month. But again defect erupted in the vehicle as the vehicle started frequent breakdown. 

1.2 On 22.07.2022 while moving to Guwahati the vehicle broke down at Silchar. It was informed and Sri Chandan Singh, Supervisor of O.P. Company shifted the vehicle to nearby workshop of another authorized dealer M/S A.S. Engineering Works at Kalain(Assam) wherein it was detected that the cooling water had mixed up with the lubricating oil engine causing serious breakdown  of the engine. The complete dismantle of the engine had to be made and overhauling of the engine was suggested by the authorized dealer of the manufacturer. The repair of the vehicle was done with the spare parts brought from the manufacturer after 57 days for which the complainant had to bear the repairing cost including installation of new Turbo charger in the engine. On 24.09.2022 the vehicle was released and repairing cost of more than Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant. But even after major repairing the vehicle started showing disturbance.

1.3 On 15.12.2022 while the vehicle was moving to Guwahati from Agartala, at Atharamura the engine developed overheating and the vehicle stopped on the road. Sri Chandan Singh, the manager of the company can be contacted on 17.12.2022 and being directed the vehicle was brought to Agartala by unloading the materials at the  huge cost of the complainant. Since then the truck is parked at Agartala inspite of repeated persuasion  by the complainant the vehicle has not been repaired or replaced.

1.4 On 18.02.2023 a Legal Notice was served upon the O.Ps but to no good. 

1.5 The interest of the financier of the bank has been increasing day by day although the vehicle has not been earning anything due to inaction by the O.Ps. Hence, this case claiming compensation of Rs.25,60,823/- in total, including other reliefs like replacement of the vehicle etc. 

2. The case has been proceeding exparte against O.P. No.1 vide exparte order dated 17.08.2023.

2.1 The O.P. No.2 & 3 in their joint written objection  admitted that on the next day of the delivery of the vehicle the complainant owner informed defect in the gear box and after 5/7 days the vehicle was brought to the workshop and on check by the mechanic defect in the gear box was detected. Consequently, the gear box of the vehicle was replaced by a new one but unfortunately within 15 days of the purchase the complainant made body of the vehicle  from another workshop. 

2.2 It is further submitted by the O.P. No.2 & 3 that the complainant did not bother to avail the schedule service of the vehicle at time. It is further alleged that on 20.12.2022 the complainant reported disturbance and accordingly during checkup engine problem was detected in the vehicle and this was communicated to the O.P. No.1 by the O.P. No.2. The complainant was informed that repairing cost of the engine shall be bear by him which the complainant denied. The company refused repairing of the vehicle on the ground as follows:-

3. The complainant submitted evidence with documents.

3.1 The O.P. No.2 & 3 also submitted evidence with documents particularly history sheet. 

4. On 03.11.2023 a petition was filed by O.P. No.2 & 3 to cross examine the complainant which was rejected on the ground that the total history of the vehicle has been depicted by the complainant and some areas has admitted even by O.P. No.2 & 3 and those information may lead to correct decision of the case. 

5. Hearing argument the following points are taken up for discussion and decision;-

Whether the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service and whether there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which the complainant is liable to be compensate?

6. Documents show that the vehicle was taken delivery on 22.02.2021 and right from the day one mechanical defect in the gear box was detected which has been admitted by the O.Ps in their written objection also. The gear box was replaced after about a month but again defect had arisen on 22.07.2022 while moving to Guwahati the vehicle broke down at Silchar and it was shifted to garage by Sri Chandan Singh, Supervisor of O.P. Company. This time it detected that cooling water had mixed up with the lubricating oil of the engine causing serious breakdown of the engine.

6.1 We find little force in the argument of the Learned Counsel of the O.P. No.2 and that for non timely servicing this defect had arisen because the 2nd servicing was due on 27.02.2022 or after 80000 K.M. However, actual date of servicing was 21.05.2022 but there is no mention in the service record submitted by the O.Ps that any difficulty had arisen in the engine due to this delayed service. Similarly, 3rd  service was due at 120000 K.M. or on 27.08.2022 but the vehicle started showing serious difficulty even before that date. Such service sheet does not bear any signature of the complainant.

6.2 On 22.07.2022 when the vehicle was parked  repairing cost Rs.50,000/- was charged when the vehicle was released on 24.09.2022.  But on 15.12.2022 while the vehicle was moving from Guwahati to Agartala the engine again developed overheating and the vehicle stopped. As per direction of Chandan Singh, the manager of the O.P. Company the vehicle was brought to Agartala unloading the load incurring huge cost. This being the scenario it is not acceptable that due to some delay in servicing the complainant violated the scope of warranty particularly mentioned in Serial No-6, 7, 8, 9 & 11 because of the scenario of the engine condition of the vehicle depicted above. Therefore, we find that some times some delay may occur when the vehicle was out of station and there is no situation in this case to conclude that the difficulty in the engine erupted not due to manufacturing defect. Further pleading of the O.Ps that the body of the vehicle was built in another workshop is of no force because the body has no connection with the engine. 

7. Hence, the point is decided against the O.Ps. 

 

8. In the result, we order that the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to replace the engine of the vehicle by a new one and pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant within 60 days from today otherwise the amount of compensation shall bear interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today and the complainant shall be entitled to the actual purchase cost of the vehicle purchased from the O.Ps with 7.5% interest from today till the date of actual payment if the O.Ps fail to replace the engine within the stipulated time as mentioned above.

9. The case stands disposed off.

10. Supply copy of this order free of cost to the parties.

Announced.

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.