F.A.284 OF 2013  With

 F.A. 294 OF 2013

                Heard Learned Counsel For Both The Parties.  Both The Appeals Arise Out Of Impugned Order And Therefore This Common Order Is Passed In Both The Appeals. The F.A. 284/2013 Is Filed By The OP No.1 & 2 And  F.A.294/2013 Is Filed By OP No.3.

2.             These Appeals Are Filed  U/S-15 Of Erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(Herein-After Called The Act). Hereinafter, The Parties To These Appeals Shall Be Referred To With Reference To Their Respective Status Before The Learned District Forum.

3.           The Case     Of Complainant, In Nutshell   Is That The Complainant Had Purchased Mahindra Verito Car Bearing Regd. No. OR-15-S-3625 From OP No.1&2 On Payment Of Due Consideration And His Vehicle Was Financed By Magma Finance Corpn. Ltd. On  30.03.2012.  On 04.07.2012 The Vehicle Met Accident. After The Accident, The Matter Was Informed To The  Insurer. The Complainant Alleged That The Vehicle Could Not Be Repaired  And Delivered Till Date For Which  The Complainant Suffered Financial Loss. In spite Of Persuing The OP They Could Not Settle The Matter. Therefore, Showing Deficiency In Service On The Part Of The OP, The Complaint Was Filed.

4.            The OPs    Filed Written Version Stating That The Vehicle Has Been Sold By OP No.2 To The Complainant. After Accident The Vehicle Was Produced Before OP No.2 For Repair But The Parts Were Not Available. So, There Is  Delay  In Repairing Of The Vehicle. The OP No.3 Could Not Supply The Parts Because The Parts Are Not Covered By The Warranty. So, They Plead That They Have No Deficiency In Service On Their Part.

5.            After Hearing Both The Parties, Learned District Forum   Passed The Following Order:-

               Xxxx              Xxxx              Xxxx

                  “The OP No.2 And 3 Are Hereby Directed To Pay A Sum Of  Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) Only To The Complainant Towards Hiring Charges Of Other Vehicle. Further The OP No.2 And 3 Are Directed To Pay A Sum Of  Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand)Only Towards Mental Agony, Harassment Including Litigation Costs.

           All The Above Orders Are To Be Carried Out Within Two Months From The Date Of This Order, Failing Which The Op No.2 And 3 Shall Be Liable For Interest @ 8 % Per Annum Till Realization.

          Accordingly The Case Is Disposed Of.”

6.           Learned Counsel For The Appellant In Both The Appeals Submitted That   Learned District Forum Has Committed Error In Law By Not Going Through The Written Version With Proper Perspectives.  According To Them  After The Vehicle Met Accident, It Was Repaired  But There Was Delay In Procuring The Parts Of The Vehicle. However, On 18.01.2013 The Vehicle Was Handed Over  And The Complainant  Was Requested  To File The Memo To Withdraw The Case. But The Learned District Forum, Without Considering All Those Documents Passed The Impugned Order Which Should Be Set-Aside By Allowing The Appeal.

7.                Learned Counsel For The Respondent Submitted That He Has Filed The Case Because  The OP No.1 To 3  Being Jointly Harassed The Complainant  In Causing Delay To Hand Over The Vehicle. The Complainant Alleged To Have Spent More Money  For Using Another Vehicle When The Present Vehicle Is Lying With OP No.1 To 3. Therefore, He Supports The Impugned Order.

  8.               Considered The Submission Of Learned Counsel For The Parties, Perused The DFR And Impugned Order.

9.                 It Is Admitted Fact That The Complainant Has Purchased The Vehicle Being Financed From Magma Finance Corpn. Ltd. But It Was Repaired By OP No.2 Although It Was Purchased From Branch Office Of OP No.1. It Is Admitted Fact That The OP No.3 Is The Manufacturer Of The Vehicle. It Is Not In Dispute That The Vehicle Met Accident During Warranty Period. It Is Also Not In Dispute That The Vehicle Was Repaired But Remained With Op No.2 And It Was Delivered On 18.01.2013.  The Only Question Arises Whether The Complainant Has Proved The Deficiency In Service On The Part Of The Ops.

10.               The Complainant Has Stated In The Affidavit That Due To Unreasonable Period Of Returning Of The Vehicle After Repairing, He Has To Hire Other Vehicle And Got Mental Agony For Delay In Handing Over The Vehicle. The Complainant Has Not Proved Any Money Receipt To Show The Hiring Of The Vehicle. The Complaint Is Also Silent About Identity Of The Vehicle Used By Him. So, We Hereby Hold That The Complainant Has Failed To Prove That There Is Deficiency In Service On The Part Of The OP For Causing Loss To The Complainant Due To Non-Delivery Of The Vehicle. But The Mental Agony And Harassment Has Been Well Proved By The Complainant Because For Non-Availing Of The Parts And There Is No Time Limit Fixed For Repairing The Vehicle Of The   Complainant For Which He Has Got Mental Agony And Harassment. The OPs Have Not Been Able To Rebut The Evidence. Hence, While  Affirming The Impugned Order We Hereby Modified The Impugned Order By Setting Aside The Hiring Charges Payable To The Complainant  In Both The Appeals But Due To Litigation Cost,  Rs.20,000/- Is  Payable By OPs  The Complainant By  OP No.2 & 3.

                 In The Result, Both The Appeals Are Disposed Of Accordingly.

11.           Therefore, The Impugned Order Is Confirmed. Same Should Be Complied Within A Period  Of 45 Days  Failing Which It Will Carry 18 % Interest From The Date Of Impugned Order Till Date Of Payment.

                  No Cost.

                Free Copy Of The Order Be Supplied To The Respective Parties Or They May Download Same From The CONFONET Or Website Of This  Commission To Treat Same As Copy Of Order Received From This Commission. 

                  DFR Be Sent Back Forthwith.