The petitioners in both these revision petitions were the opposite parties before the District Forum, where the respondent / complainant, Maj. General (Retd.) B.S. Suhag had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners, i.e., M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner in RP No. 1560 of 2009 and1st opposite party before the District Forum) and M/s. British Motor Car Company (Petitioner in RP No. 3673 of 2008 and 2nd Opposite Party before the District Forum). Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had purchased in Dec. 2002, an Opel Astra car, manufactured by M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. through M/s. British Motor Car Company, the dealer of the manufacturer. It was the case of the complainant that car started giving numerous problems including high engine temperature, vibration at 300 rpm, steering wobbling defective suspensions, left hand front window, defective rattling in left front and right rear windows, defective horn and other defects. The car had to be taken 8 times to the workshop during the short span of about 8 month from the date of purchase. In one case, the car remained there for 17 days in the repair shop. It is in these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Forum praying for replacement of car, and to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh for causing harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioners contested the case before the District Forum, who after hearing both the parties and perusal of expert report and material on record, allowed the complaint in following terms:- “16. Thus, considered from any angle and from the material available on the record we find that the respondents had failed to rectify the defects as pointed out even by 10 visits. The job card dated 16.11.02 and service of the vehicle on that day support the version of the complainant that it was a defective piece. The respondents had thus rendered a deficient service to the complainant by selling to him a defective vehicle who is a retired Major General of defence forces and presently Vice Chancellor of MD university an old aged citizen though statedly at a cheaper rate. Thus it is order that the respondent will replace the defective vehicle with OK vehicle of the same model but as the respondents themselves plead that, that model had been phased out its price recovered be refunded. 17. As regards damages, the complainant has claimed One Lac. He has visited Gurgaon 10 times as per respondents themselves covering about 2000 Kms wasting time, energy and money and keeping in view his age and status we order the respondent to pay only Rs.20,000/- as damages for mental agony etc.” Aggrieved by this order, both the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission, who through a detailed and comprehensive order dismissed this appeal. Aggrieved by this order, two separate revision petitions have been filed before us. In the revision petition filed by M/s. British Motor Company Limited (RP No. 3673 of 2008), the contention of the petitioner is that he is only a dealer and as per settled law, he cannot be burdened with any liability in the case of manufacturing defect having been established. In the revision petition filed by M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (RP No. 1560 of 2009), the prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. We heard the Ld. Counsel for all the three parties at some length. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., candidly admitted that in case of manufacturing defect, the dealer cannot be held liable. Admittedly, in this case, both the lower fora after examining the material on record as well as the test’s report especially of ARAI, have arrived at the conclusion that this was a case of manufacturing defect. In view of above, as rightly admitted by the counsel for M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., the dealer, M/s. British Motor Car Company, cannot be held liable, in view of which, order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission holding both the petitioners liable, is modified to the extent that no liability can be fastened against the dealer, i.e., M/s. British Motor Car Company (Petitioner in RP No. 3673 / 2008), in view of which RP No. 3673 of 2008 filed by M/s. British Motor Car Company is allowed and order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission stands modified in above terms. Coming to the RP No. 1560 of 2009, filed by the manufacturer, M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., we see that this revision petition has been filed with a delay of 155 days, for which a separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. It may be relevant to mention here that the application was not filed alongwith the revision petition. The application was filed later on after 21 days of filing this revision petition. Be that as it may, we have very carefully gone through the application for condonation of delay. The main ground argued before us by the Counsel for the Petitioner, M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., is that they were not served with the copy of the order passed by the State Commission and they came to know about the order passed by the State Commission only in March 2009. When the attention of the Counsel for the Petitioner was drawn towards the endorsement in the copy of the State Commission’s order, brought on record, wherein it is clearly spelled out that a copy of the order was sent to the parties by the State Commission on 28.08.08, a plea was taken by the counsel for the petitioner that they had changed the address in June 2008, hence, they did not receive this copy, hence they were not aware of the order. We have very carefully gone through the application for condonation of delay. There is no such plea taken in this application about change of address in the month of June 2008, hence, we are unable to accept the plea of not having been received the copy of the order sent by the State Commission on 28.08.08. Moreover, there is nothing on record that any change of address was at any time intimated to the State Commission, where they were the appellants, hence, in our view, this plea regarding change of address does not stand our scrutiny. The revision petition (RP No. 1560 / 2009) filed before us with a delay of 155 days is clearly barred by limitation. The consumer fora are expected to dispose off the revision petitions in a summary manner within a very short time. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in view of which we dismiss the application for condonation of delay as a result of which the revision petition filed by the M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Limited, is dismissed as barred by limitation. Both the revision petition stand disposed off in above terms.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | |
