Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/369/2015

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Throuh Its A.S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohan Lal S/O Ram Pratap By Caste Kumhar - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Mootha

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 369 /2015

 

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Gateway Building, Apolo Bunder, Mumbai through its authorised signatory

Vs.

 

Mohan Lal s/o Shri Ram Pratap r/o Chak 9 PSD Tehsil Ghadsana, Distt. Sriganganagar & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 444 /2015

 

M/s. Gurunanak Enterprises, Anoopgarh Road, Raisinghnagar Distt. Sriganganagar.

 

Vs.

 

Mohan Lal s/o Shri Ram Pratap r/o Chak 9 PSD Tehsil Ghadsana, Distt. Sriganganagar & ors.

 

Date of Order 2.2.2016

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Rajesh Mootha counsel for the appellant in both appeals

Mr. Umesh Chaudhary counsel for respondent no.1-complainant

None present on behalf of respondent no.2

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

 

Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment of learned DCF Sriganganagar dated 11.2.2015 hence, are decided by this common order.

 

The short facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent no.1 purchased a tractor from Gurunanak Enterprises respondent no.1 in original complaint and manufacturer of the tractor was Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. respondent no.2 in the original complaint. The contention of the

3

 

complainant was that from the day one there was higher consumption of diesel in the tractor. It was consuming 8 to 9 lt. diesel per hour whereas he has been told that it will consume only 4 lt. diesel per hour. The tractor was shown to the dealer on 17.7.2014 and it has been stated that it is manufacturing defect hence, should be shown to service center. The complainant took the vehicle to the service center and it was found that it was consuming more diesel because adulterated diesel is being used. The court below has found that there was manufacturing defect and hence liability has been assigned to the present appellants. Hence, these appeals.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the tractor was purchased on 16.9.2013 whereas first time the complaint for consuming more diesel was made on 17.7.2014 whereas earlier on 13.12.2013 service of the tractor was done but no such complaint was stated. Hence, whole complaint is baseless and frivolous. Further it has also been rightly pleaded that appellants are not the manufacturer of diesel pump and there is no evidence to the effect that there was manufacturing defect in the diesel pump. First time after running the tractor for 798 hours the complaint has been raised and the court has wrongly ordered replacement of diesel pump. It was get repaired by

4

 

respondent no.3 and further the contention of the appellant is that still if there is any defect, it can be cured.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

It is not in dispute that the tractor was purchased on 16.9.2013 and first time defect was pointed out on 17.7.2014 when admittedly the tractor has completed 798 hours. Earlier on 13.12.2013 no such complaint has been raised inspite of the fact that the pleading in the present complaint is that from the day one the tractor was consuming more diesel. Hence, the basis of the complaint seems to be doubtful and there is nothing on record to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the diesel pump. The diesel pump was get repaired by respondent no.3 and it was found by respondent no.3 that there is no manufacturing defect. There is no evidence to the effect that diesel pump was having any manufacturing defect. Hence, the order of the court below is not to be sustained as regard to replacement of new diesel pump and reliance has been placed on IV (2009) CPJ 144 (NC) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Casino Dias where it has been held that where there is no manufacturing defect, the replacement of vehicle should not

5

 

have been directed and petitioners are directed to make the vehicle road worthy and free of defects. Hence, relief no.2 granted by the court below is liable to be set aside and amended to the effect that diesel pump set should have been made free of defects within one month from the date of the order.

 

In view of the above the appeals are partially allowed and relief no.2 granted by the court below is amended accordingly.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm