Date of Filing :06.04.2021
Date of Disposal :01.07.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:1st JULY 2021
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr KRISHNAMURTHY B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No 355/2021
Mr Nanda Kumar B G,
Aged about 43 years,
R/ at No. 1044,
16th 'B’ Cross, Sector B,
Passage Road,
Yelahanka Upanagara,
Bengaluru-560064
(By Mr Gopalakrishnamurthy C) Appellant
-Versus-
1. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
Gateway Building,
Apollo Bunder,
Mumbai-400039.
2. M/s. India Garage,
Authorized Dealer for Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager,
VST Vistas, No. 1, Palace Cross Road,
Chakravarthy Layout,
Bengaluru – 560020.
3. M/s I G Workshop
Authorized Workshop for
India Garage and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
Rep. by its Regional Manager
Regd. Office at No.63. St. Marks Road
Bengaluru- 560 058
Service Centre at No.207-208
3rd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area
Bengaluru- 560 058 Respondents
-:ORDER:-
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 41 of CP Act, 2019, challenging the Order dated 22.02.2021 passed by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in Consumer Complaint No.1214/2016.
2. The facts in brief of this Appeal is that, on 05.12.2015 the Complainant had purchased Mahindra TUV 300 T8 White car manufactured by OP1, bearing TO registration No KA04MR1004 from OP2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,43,299/- by availing vehicle loan of Rs.8,00,000/ - from Vijaya Bank. Subsequently, thereof, the Caris alleged to have developed many problems and for rectifying the same, he had left the car on 06.01.2016 in the authorised Service Centre of OP1, i.e., OP2. On 19.01.2016 he took delivery of the repaired vehicle, but the vehicle once again started giving problems of noise, Reverse Camera was continuously ON, problem of burning smell in AC. Therefore on 05.02.2016, once again he left the Car for the purposes of identified repairs and on taking delivery of the repaired vehicle, the observed that the defects were not rectified and hence, again on 02.03.2016, the Complainant left his Car for repairs and subsequently the car was returned stating that the Car is repaired by replacing necessary spare parts. However, on 07.04.2016 when the Car abruptly stopped without movement near Koramangala, the car was attended by OP2 and thereafter the Complainant was informed by the OP that the vehicle was ready on 19.04.2016, but OPs failed to rectify the repairs. Hence, the Complainant alleging deficiency in service, lodged the present Complaint seeking direction to the OPs for refund of Rs.11,43,299/- towards cost of the Car and Rs 6 Lakhs as damages.
3. On service of Notice, OPs entered appearance and OPs 2 & 3 filed their joint Version and OP1 filed his Version separately.
In his statement of Version, amongst other pleas, OP1 pleaded that he is only the Manufacturer of the Car and all the defects pointed out by the Complainant have been carried out by OPs 2 & 3. Hence, there are no manufacturing defects. In the absence of Report from an Expert, the Complainant cannot claim that car suffers from manufacturing defects and complainant is not entitle to any relief and thus sought dismissal of the complaint.
In their statement of Version, amongst other pleas, OPs 2 & 3 admitted that the Car of the Complainant was repaired as & when required and also admitted that the Car of the Complainant got stopped in the middle of the road and later on they carried out the repairs. The Complainant left the Car with them since 13.05.2016 without taking delivery and he is liable to pay Parking Charges of Rs.350/- per day from 13.05.2016. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and sought Dismissal of the Complaint with exemplary cost.
4. The District Forum after considering the Pleadings & Evidences led in by both the parties, deemed it fit to return the Complaint, on the ground that the Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as on the date of Complaint and new Act has no retrospective effect.
5. Being not satisfied with the Order passed by the District Commission, Complainant is in Appeal, inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that the District Commission wrongly came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, which is totally illegal in nature and it has caused great injustice to him and thus seeks to be set aside the impugned Order.
6. Heard the arguments of the Appellant.
7. Perused the impugned Order & records.
8. Taking into consideration the Complainant's claim of Rs 11,43,299/- towards the cost of the vehicle purchased by him and Rs 6 Lakhs as Compensation, which sums up to a total of Rs 17,43,299/- is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission as per Sec 12 of CP Act 1986 which was prevailing when the Complaint was filed and even otherwise including the present claim of Interest @ 18% from 19.11.2015, which will sum up to a total of 30,92,301/- is well within the jurisdiction of the District Commission, as per the new CP Act 2019 the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 passed by II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in Consumer Complaint No.1214/2016 and the matter is remanded to the District Commission to dispose off the case on merits within 3 months from the date of receipt of this Order.
9. The Notice to the Respondents herein is dispensed with.
10. The parties to the appeal are directed to bear their own costs.
11. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, free of cost immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
