Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/17/2015

Baljit Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Goyal, Adv.

13 Apr 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	17 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	29.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	13.04.2015

 

 

Baljit Sandhu S/o Sh. Charanjit Singh, resident of Flat No.602, Group Housing Society No.108, Sector 20, Panchkula.

……Complainant.

Versus

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mohindra Towers, 5th Floor, B-Wing, Worli, Mumbai.
2. Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.33 & 23, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh .

              ....Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by: 

 

Sh. R.K. Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Krishan Singla, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                The complainant purchased SUV Ssangyong (SUV) top model i.e. Rexton RX 270 XVI vide Invoice No.INV 148000136 on 13.05.2013 (Annexure C-1), bearing Chassis No.MA1PB4PBBD6D40732, Engine No.6659322532968 Registration No.CH 01 AU 7936 and customer ID no.C140973298 through Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2), at a total cost of Rs.21,06,841/-. It was stated that the said vehicle was giving the complainant a great trouble, from the very beginning due to some patent manufacturing defect therein. It was further stated that in June 2013, the dickey door of the vehicle started causing noise, which after repair by Opposite Party No.2, could not be rectified. It was further stated that on 10^th August 2013, the side indicators of the vehicle suddenly stopped working, due to which serious accident was averted. It was further stated that despite attending the problem of indicators, the same could not be set right by Opposite Party No.2.

2.             It was further stated that on 14.08.2013, the car, in question, suddenly broke-down on the highway, and again accident was averted. It was further stated that the vehicle was towed to Opposite Party No.2, where it remained for two weeks but the patent defects could not be retified. It was further stated that again on 17.09.2013, the car was brought to the workshop for the rectification of defects viz. fuel filler cap stopped functioning; noise from both the front doors; music system stopped reading disk; air jammed in AC/smell coming from inside cabin from outside even fresh mode off; anti-skidding mode started ‘Off/On’ on its own; and the vehicle pulling towards left hand side. It was further stated that the workshop staff claimed to have solved the problems, but the same kept on recurring again and again. It was further stated that the steering wheel of the vehicle suddenly got rotated at 90 degree, on its own, while the complainant was on his way to Srinagar. It was further stated that the car was taken to Srinagar NHIA Tengpora where the wheels were aligned. It was further stated that the problem reoccurred a few days thereafter, but could not be rectified and was still subsisting.

3.             It was further stated that on 22.11.2013, the anti-skidding mode again started working on its own and auto cruze stopped working, which problem could not be set right by the staff of Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that on 28.12.2013, the complainant took the car to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, where it was kept for 15 days, but the problems could not be rectified. It was further stated that the defects aforesaid were reported to the Company on 5.2.2014, 22.2.2014, 7.4.2014 and 3.5.2014, but neither its representatives, who inspected the vehicle nor the workshop staff were serious to set right the same. It was further stated that there is a major manufacturing defect, in the engine, and other parts of the vehicle, which could not be rectified, despite various visits of the complainant to the workshop.

4.             It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties many times, either to remove the defects once for all, or in the alternative replace the car as the same was within the warranty period, but the Authorities paid no heed to his requests. It was further stated that, ultimately, the complainant served legal notice dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure C-4), but to no avail.

5.             It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to replace the vehicle; pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, besides Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation.

6.             Opposite Party No.1 was served and put in appearance, on 05.03.2015. In its written statement, filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh, its Authorized Signatory, Opposite Party No.1, stated that Opposite Party No.2, being its authorised dealer, was authorized to purchase the vehicles manufactured by it, in bulk quantities and, in turn, resell the same to their own customers. It was denied that the vehicle, in question, was not in accordance with the promises and there was major fault in the engine. It was also denied that  the Opposite Parties failed to set right the same. It was further stated that the complainant had referred to the technology and testing norms of XUV 500 and not of the vehicle, in question, Ssangyong Rexton, which is another vehicle manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the vehicle, in question, is still manufactured in Korea & assembled in India after complying with all the terms and conditions. It was denied that the vehicle was giving trouble from the beginning and having manufacturing defect.

7.             It was further stated that on 10.06.2013, the vehicle was reported at the dealership with the problem of dickey door noise, which was rectified by doing minor adjustment of rubber pad. It was further stated that the dickey door noise, could not be said to be  a patent manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the rubber could be misaligned due to any external factors or due to some mishandling or negligent handling. It was denied that the problem of indicator still persisted in the vehicle and sometimes the indicators stopped working.  It was further stated that this problem of indicators was non-existing in the vehicle. It was further stated that the photographs attached, could be clicked when meter gets activated and all the lights turned on for a while. It was further stated that the car did not break down because of technical defects, in the functioning of the engine, rather on 14.8.2013, the car reported at the dealership with broken ‘flywheel drive plate’. It was further stated that the function of flywheel drive plate is to transmit the power from the engine to the transmission through flywheel, which pushes the vehicle in forward direction. It was further stated that if at any point of time, anybody forcibly tries to engage the reverse gear while the vehicle is moving forward or shifting of lever from drive mode to manual mode, while the engine is at inappropriate RPM, there will be two opposite forces working at the same time on the flywheel and drive plate, resulting in high torsional forces on the parts.  It was further stated that these opposite forces can cause the failure of the material/break the flywheel drive plate. It was further stated that in the vehicle of the complainant, most likely reason for the breaking of the flywheel was that while driving at the high speed, the driver/co-driver had inadvertently engaged the reverse gear or shifting or lever from drive mode to manual mode, while the engine was at inappropriate RPM and it caused the breakage of fly wheel drive plate. It was further stated that the situation was explained in the email dated 26.08.2013 that gearbox, engine and other assemblies were perfectly fine.

8.             It was further stated that out of five problems reported, alleged defects viz. music system stopped reading disk, air jammed in AC/smelling coming from inside cabin from outside even fresh mode off; & anti skidding mode started ‘Off/On’ of  its  own, were  never  reported  in  any    future visits and regarding defects viz. fuel filler cap stopped functioning & noise from both the front doors, the requisite parts were changed under warranty and thereafter these defects were never reported again. It was further stated that defects no.1 and 2, could arise by negligent handling or mishandling of that particular part.  It was further stated that every vehicle needed wheel alignment and it was not a manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the vehicle was ready on the same day and there was delay on the part of  the complainant who did not come to receive his vehicle. It was further stated that the problem of steering wheel was never reported anywhere or at any authorized dealership of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that “Auto Cruise stop working” had not been reported on 23.11.2013. It was further stated that anti skidding (ESP) was reported and on checking, the  same  was  found  OK.  It  was denied that the vehicle could not be set right by the workshop staff. It was further stated that the workshop staff could only rectify the defect, if it existed. It was further stated that in this case, ESP light had been checked and was found OK.

9.             It was denied that the vehicle was reported to the workshop on 28.12.2013. It was further stated that the vehicle reported on 2.1.2014 and the job card reflected the same. It was further stated that in this visit, neither the defects were reported nor the defect in air bag was reported. It was further stated that Steering Angle Sensor was replaced just only for the satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that for the problem of engine noise, the vehicle was checked and for the satisfaction of the complainant, vacuum modulator was changed. It was further stated that the side mirror, high beam and low beam, as alleged, were found OK. It was further stated that minor wear and tear could not be termed as manufacturing defect, by any stretch of imagination.

10.           It was further stated that on 5.2.2014, the complainant never visited any authorized dealership of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that on 22.2.2014, the complainant reported with noise under body and suspension hard but after inspection, both the problems were not found and centre console was adjusted. It was further stated that the complete copy of history of 22.2.2014 was annexed as Annexure R-1/1. It was further stated that on 7.4.2014, problem of noise from engine compartment was reported and after checking, belt & auto tensioner were replaced for customer satisfaction. A complete copy of history dated  3.5.2014 was annexed as Annexure R-1/2. It was further stated that the complainant miserably failed to prove, on record, any manufacturing defect. It was further stated that moreover, one or two items, which were replaced, were replaced free of cost under warranty. It was further stated that the vehicle is defect free and at various times, the complainant gave his satisfaction note (Annexure R-1/3). It was further stated that the legal notice was duly replied (Annexure R-1/4 colly.). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

11.           Opposite Party No.2 was served and put in appearance on 05.03.2015. In its written statement, filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Mittal, its Managing Director, it stated that M/s Swami Automobiles and M/s Swani Automobiles are separate entities. It was admitted that the complainant purchased Rexton vehicle make of Opposite       Party No.1 from it (Opposite Party No.2). It was denied that vehicle Rexton was giving trouble from its inception and had manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 for minor wear and tear, which was resolved to his entire satisfaction. It was further stated that on 10.6.2013, the vehicle was reported with dickey door noise, and minor adjustment of rubber pad was done in order to rectify the same. It was denied that the problem of indicator still persisted in the vehicle. It was further stated that the photographs attached could be clicked when meter gets activated, all the lights turned on for a while. It was further stated that the car did not break down because of technical defects, in the functioning of the engine, rather on 14.8.2013, the car reported at the dealership with broken ‘flywheel drive plate’. It was further stated that the function of flywheel drive plate is to transmit the power from the engine to the transmission through flywheel, which pushes the vehicle in forward direction. It was further stated that if at any point of time, anybody forcibly tries to engage the reverse gear while the vehicle is moving forward or shifting of lever from drive mode to manual mode, while the engine is at inappropriate RPM, there will be two opposite forces working at the same time on the flywheel and drive plate, resulting in high torsional forces on the parts and these opposite forces can cause the failure of the material/break the flywheel drive plate. It was further stated that most likely reason for breaking of the flywheel was that while driving at the high speed, the driver/co-driver had inadvertently engaged the reverse gear or shifting of lever from drive mode to manual mode, while the engine was at inappropriate RPM and it caused the breakage of fly wheel drive place. It was further stated that the situation was explained in the email dated 26.08.2013 that gearbox and engine and other assemblies were perfectly fine.

12.           It was further stated that the alleged defects viz. music system stopped reading disk, air jammed in AC/smelling coming from inside cabin from outside even fresh mode off & anti skidding mode started ‘Off/On’  of  its  own,  were never  reported  in  any   future visits and regarding defects viz. fuel filler cap stopped functioning & noise from both the front doors, the requisite parts were changed under warranty and thereafter, these defects were also never reported again. It was further stated that defects no.1 and 2 could arise by negligent handling or mishandling of that particular part.  It was further stated that every vehicle needed wheel alignment and it was not any manufacturing defect. It was further stated that “Auto Cruise stop working” had not been reported on 23.11.2013. It was further stated that anti skidding (ESP) was reported and on checking, the same was found OK. It was denied that the vehicle could not be set right by the workshop staff. It was further stated that the workshop staff could only rectify the defect if it existed. It was further stated that in this case, ESP light had been checked and was found OK.

13.           It was denied that the vehicle reported to the workshop on 28.12.2013. It was further stated that when the vehicle reported on 2.1.2014, neither the defects were reported nor the defect in the air bag was reported. It was further stated that Steering Angle Sensor was replaced just only for the satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that for the problem of engine noise, the vehicle was checked and for the satisfaction of the complainant, vacuum modulator was changed. It was further stated that the side mirror, high beam and low bean, as alleged, were found OK. It was further stated that minor wear and tear could not be termed as manufacturing defect by any stretch of imagination.

14.           It was further stated that on 5.2.2014, the complainant did not visit any authorized dealership of Opposite Party No.1, and on 22.2.2014, the complainant reported with noise under body and suspension hard but after inspection, both the problems were not found and centre console was adjusted. It was further stated that the complete copy of history of 22.2.2014 was annexed by Opposite Party No.1 as Annexure R-1/1. It was further stated that on 7.4.2014, the problem of noise from engine compartment was reported and after checking, belt & auto tensioner were replaced for customer satisfaction. A complete copy of history dated 3.5.2014 was annexed by Opposite Party No.1, as Annexure R-1/2. It was further stated that the complainant miserably failed to prove, on record the manufacturing defect. It was further stated that moreover, the one or two items, which were replaced, were replaced free of cost under warranty. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

15.           The complainant, filed separate replications wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written versions of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. 

16.           The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

17.           Opposite Party No.1, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh, its authorized signatory, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

18.           Opposite Party No.2, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Mittal, its Managing Director, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

19.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

20.           Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased SUV Ssangyong, Top Model i.e. Rexton RX 270 XVI, for Rs.21,06,841/- on 13.05.2013 (Annexure C-1). He further submitted that first complaint regarding noise in the dickey door was made on 10.06.2013 (Annexure C-3 at Page 19) but the same was still giving trouble/noise. He further submitted that another complaint that indicators stopped working and were getting Off/On was lodged on 10.08.2013. He further submitted that on 14.08.2013, the car broke down on the highway and the same had to be towed to the agency, where it remained for two weeks. He further submitted that on 28.10.2013, the vehicle was again taken to the workshop i.e. Opposite Party No.2, for defects viz. fuel filler cap not opening, noise from dickey side and both front door during opening, music system not reading disc & turn off automatically, smell coming inside cabin from outside even fresh model is Off, anti-skidding function light glowing in display panel sometimes, steering wheel straighten properly and footsteps both nut bolt tight properly. He further submitted that from time to time, various defects were occurring despite the fact that the vehicle was new and was within the warranty period and even some of the defects were reoccurring. He further submitted that there was defect in the steering also. He relied upon two judgments of National Commission in M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. And another, Original Petition No.9 of 2006 decided on 17.09.2007 and G. K. Jain Vs. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and Another, 1996 (2) CPC 145, wherein the vehicle was ordered to be replaced and compensation for mental agony and physical harassment was also awarded.

21.           Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 submitted that no one/any agency has given report that the vehicle, in question, was suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. They further submitted that when the vehicle was brought with the problem relating to dickey noise, the same was handled every time and on regular intervals. They further submitted that on 10.06.2013 i.e. after one month of its purchase when the first complaint was made, the vehicle had covered 3548 KMs. Regarding breakdown of the vehicle on the highway, the Counsel submitted that the vehicle was an automatic vehicle and this did not happen due to technical defect as submitted in Para 2(b) of the written statement filed by Opposite Party No.1 and the said defect was rectified. They further submitted that as would be evident from Annexures R-1/1 and R-2/2, the defects were rectified and the vehicle was found to be OK. They further submitted that the complainant failed to point out as to what actually was the manufacturing defect. They further submitted that the defects occurred either on account of normal wear and tear of the vehicle, or due to improper handling of the same, by the complainant. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 placed reliance on Satnam Singh Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & others, 2014 (3) CLT 507, wherein the National Commission held that in case of defective vehicle, only the defective parts could be replaced but not the whole vehicle.

22.           It is evident that the vehicle, in question, viz. SUV Ssangyong, Top Model i.e. Rexton RX 270 XVI, was purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 on 13.05.2013 at a total cost of Rs.21,06,841/- (Annexure C-1). The vehicle as per the latest job card relating to repair on 03.05.2014 at the time of 3^rd Free Service, had covered 28517 KMs. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle has been giving trouble from the very beginning due to some patent manufacturing defects. From the documents, placed by the complainant on record, it is established that the complainant took the vehicle for repair to Opposite Party No.2 on 10.06.2013 with the problem of noise in the tail gate (Annexure C-3 colly.); on 10.08.2013 for indicator not working & air bag indication sometimes glowing on display panel; on 14.08.2013 for breakdown as the vehicle did not start & towed through towing van, clutch hard; on 02.01.2014/09.01.2014 with the problems viz. ESP Switch off automatically, Auto cruze get off automatically, Head light not working properly, Indicators not working properly, Music system not working properly, Side view mirror noise both, Dickey noise & Dry cleaning not done properly; on 31.01.2014/05.02.2014 for RHS rear mirror loosen, Sound from gear box, Tyre wear (Front) excessive, Gad Gad noise from front underbody & Rear door noise (CHID CHID) and on 12.02.2014 with the problem of ESP light on & Gear noise. On other occasions i.e. 17.09.2013, 28.10.2013, 23.11.2013, 22.02.2014, 29.03.2014, 07.04.2014 and 03.05.2014, the vehicle was taken for running repairs, general check-up and free services. The documents, on record, reveal that, as and when, the vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.2, the same was due to different reasons. At no stage, the vehicle was taken on account of any manufacturing defect, in the engine. It is also evident that Opposite Party No.2, even changed the parts i.e. Element Kit Oil filter, Element Assy., Pad set-Frt. Brake, Filter fuel, Air filter assy, Disposable protective cover K. on 23.11.2013; Contact coil Assy.-steering & Clock Assy.-Ditical R and R on 22.02.2014; Tension assy. Belt & Belt-Ply, Grooved on 07.04.2014 and Element kit oil filter & Air filter assy. on 03.05.2014 and in respect of other defects, carried out the repairs. No doubt the vehicle suffered from one or the other defects, at one point of time or the other. The contention of the complainant that the vehicle was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect is not on sound   footing.  Not only this, the complainant has not supported his contention with any expert evidence. It is also evident that the vehicle during one year period, as per Annexure C-3 colly. (Page 30), had covered 28517 KMs as on 03.05.2014. It is not the case of the complainant that he was not using the vehicle at the time of filing the complaint. At the rate of usage of the vehicle, during the first year of purchase, the vehicle would have covered another 28000 KMs or so. When a vehicle is used, there is bound to be normal wear and tear. In Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr., 2010 (2) CPJ 67, the National Commission held that in the absence of expert opinion, it is difficult to hold that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Since in the instant case, the complainant failed to establish, on record, any manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, as observed by the National Commission in Satnam Singh Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & others’s case (supra), replacement of vehicle, cannot be allowed. At the same time, there has been occurrence of different defects in the vehicle, which certainly caused harassment to the complainant. However, the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the complainant in M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. And another and G. K. Jain Vs. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and Another’s case (supra), are distinguishable on facts and, as such, no benefit out of them can be derived by the Counsel for the complainant. In G. K. Jain Vs. M/s Maruti Udyog Limited’s case (supra), there was major problem regarding caster and camber, which continued and the vehicle had also covered only 5500 KM during a long period of 5 years, whereas in the instant case, the vehicle, in question, during one year period had covered 28517 KMs (i.e. from the date of purchase on 13.05.2013 till 03.05.2014). In M/s. Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’s case (supra), the National Commission, after discussing the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by it (National Commission) and the report of an expert namely, Mr. Balraj Bhanot, of the Company, came to a definite conclusion that the temperature of the hump of a Mercedez Benz, which was one of the costliest cars, increased during long journeys and, therefore, it could be said that it was not free from defects. However, in the instant case, the complainant did not lead any expert evidence, to establish the factum of any inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is, thus, a fit case, in which repair of vehicle and replacement of its defective parts without charging any amount, to make it fully functional, can be ordered. Since no manufacturing defect in the vehicle was proved, replacement thereof cannot be ordered. The Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, by not fully rectifying the defects, in the vehicle reported from time to time.

23.           In view of the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that the complainant miserably failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in question. However, definitely, the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment, on account of other defects in the vehicle, which occurred on different stages. Such frequent occurrence/reoccurrence of defects cannot be entirely the outcome of normal wear and tear/usage of the vehicle, in question, for which, he needs to be adequately compensated.

24.           No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

25.           For the reasons recorded, above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally held liable and directed as under:-

1. The complainant shall handover the vehicle, in question against receipt to Opposite Party No.2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order aforesaid.
2. On receipt of the vehicle, they (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) shall repair/rectify the defects, in the vehicle, in question,  and replace the defective parts thereof, if any, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount from him, within a period of 20 days and handover the same (vehicle) to him within 5 days thereafter against receipt.
3. To submit the affidavits of their Engineers/Mechanics, effecting repairs, replacing defective parts thereof, if any, that the vehicle has been made fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant within 10 days to the Commission from the date of handing over the same (vehicle) to him (complainant).
4. to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant, as compensation, for deficiency in service, mental agony and physical harassment caused to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
5. to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.
6. In case the order is not complied with by the Opposite Parties, within the stipulated period, then they shall jointly and severally, pay the amount mentioned in Clause (d), above, alongwith interest @12% per annum, to the complainant, from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 29.01.2015, till actual payment.

26.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

27.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

April 13, 2015.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 

 

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

Ad

 

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2015)

(Baljit Sandhu Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Anr.)

 

Argued by: 

 

Sh. R.K. Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Krishan Singla, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

Dated the 13^th day of April 2015.

 

ORDER

 

                On 27.03.2015, the complainant moved an application for referring the vehicle to an agency of repute for expert examination on the ground that the Opposite Parties in their replies have taken specific objection that there was no expert opinion to prove the major manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in question. It was further stated, in the application, that since the complainant was unable to procure such opinion in writing from any agency, the vehicle be sent to a reputed person/agency for inspection.

2.             Reply to the aforesaid application was filed by Opposite Party No.1, on 30.03.2015, wherein it was stated that the application, aforesaid, was filed at belated stage, just to delay the proceedings. It was further stated that the complainant himself admitted in Para 3 of the application that he approached many agencies of repute but none had given   the report, which itself showed that the vehicle was defect free. It was further stated that the complainant filed the application

 

after the pleadings of the parties had been completed. It was further stated that the process of Court could not be used in order to collect the evidence for the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant had to prove his case by way of leading cogent piece of evidence at the appropriate stage, however, he (complainant) filed the instant application to fill lacuna.

3.             Heard on the application aforesaid.

4.             It is important to mention here that it was only after taking plea by the Opposite Parties regarding non filing of any expert evidence to corroborate manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the complainant moved the application aforesaid. The complainant was having adequate opportunity to lead such expert evidence at the time of leading evidence. Thus, adequate opportunity was afforded to the complainant to bring on record such expert evidence. Therefore, at this stage, the plea of the complainant that he tried to procure such evidence but could not do so, is afterthought, just to refute the objection of the Opposite Parties. In case, at this stage, the application for referring the vehicle for expert opinion, for which no justified ground exists, is allowed, that will delay the disposal of complaint, thereby defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 13 (3A), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulating the specific time, for the disposal of the Consumer Disputes. Thus, there is no justification, whatsoever, to allow the application, at this stage. The application is accordingly dismissed.

5.             Arguments in the main complaint already heard.

6.             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the complaint, has been partly accepted, with costs.

7.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

Sd/-                                               (DEV RAJ) MEMBER

Sd/- (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Ad