| Final Order / Judgement | Date of filing:04.01.2022 & 07.02.2022 Date of Disposal:22.05.2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 22nd Day of March 2023 PRESENT HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NOs.65 & 254 of 2022 C O M M O N O R D E R BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT - These two appeals are filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, one by OP1 and another by OP2 in CC/96/2021, aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)
- The nutshell of the facts and circumstances of the case before the Commission below are thus: Complainant raised consumer complaint before the Commission below alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs for selling Ford Ecosport (Trend-MT) car with a manufacturing defect and not refunding the value of the vehicle as agreed. Upon service of notice OP2 appeared through his advocate Mr.K.M.Manjunatha Swamy but failed to file version within time stipulated. OP1 inspite of service of notice failed to appear before the Commission and was placed exparte. Commission below after holding enquiry hold that the said vehicle has and had an inherent manufacturing defect. Thereby directed OP Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.11,24,394/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 17.12.2020 till payment of the entire amount. Further OPs are directed to pay Rs.2,12,500/- being the additional fittings and refurbishing the vehicle. After receipt of the refund of the amount as above, complainant is directed to return the vehicle KA-04-MK-4375 along with all upholstery and changes made to the vehicle intact within 15 days to OPs under receipt. Also OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for causing inconvenience and Rs.25,000/- towards damages as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 15 days.
- Aggrieved by the said Order, these two appeals are filed, one by OP1 in Appeal No.65/2022 on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts as complainant has not filed any technical expert report nor brought about the deposition of any technical expert that there was in fact any manufacturing defect and another by OP2 on the ground that, authorised service cannot be made accountable if manufacturing defect is proved since there is no documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint.
- Commission heard learned counsels on record and perused the impugned order passed by Commission below in CC/96/2021, dated 24.11.2021. Now Commission has to decide whether impugned order passed by the Commission below is contrary to facts and law as appealed by OPs?
- It is undisputed fact that complainant had purchased Ford Ecosport (Trend-MT) from OP1 by paying Rs.11,37,840/- by obtaining bank loan which is being registered as KA-04 MX-4375, during February 2020. It is also not in dispute that complainant had left the vehicle with OP2 for service. The only dispute is related to the defect in the vehicle purchased by complainant. It is alleged by the complainant before the Commission below that OP1 sold the car with manufacturing defect and OP2 inspite of keeping the vehicle for many days have miserably failed to fix the defect in the vehicle. It is to be noted herein that complainant had experienced jerk in the engine of the vehicle while climbing an upgradient on 30.06.2020. Even after replacing the wiring harness, on 28.10.2020 the vehicle in question while climbing inclined, started jerked severely and came to halt. It is pertinent to note here that complainant has stated in his complaint that the vehicle had covered 7346kms. Thus, by looking into these aspects we can draw an inference that the vehicle in question is not having any inherent manufacturing defect since the alleged vehicle had run more than 7346kms and since no vehicle having manufacturing defect can run for such many kilometre that too within 01 year of being purchased. The Commission below presumed that the vehicle in question is having a manufacturing defect only on the basis of email dated 17.12.2020 sent by OP in which they had come forward to refund the amount of the vehicle, which in our view is not justifiable, since this very aspect of manufacturing defect cannot be construed without any supporting documents and the act of OP of coming forward to refund the amount of the vehicle does not mean that they had agreed that the vehicle in question is of the manufacturing defect. Thus the Commission below committed error in drawing to the conclusion that the vehicle in question is having a manufacturing defect which calls for an interference of this Commission. Nonetheless, the vehicle in question though not proved as the manufacturing defect with any supporting document but it also cannot be concluded that there is no defect in the alleged vehicle since on several occasions complainant had experienced the jerk in the engine which caused inconvenience. Since OP1/Appellant in A/65/2022 as per the email dated 17th December 2020 themselves has come forward to refund the cost of the vehicle due to the complainant apprehension on the product we cannot make OP2/authorized service centre to pay the cost jointly and severally. Hence, taking into consideration the OP1 gesture of coming forward to refund the cost of the vehicle on 17th December 2020 which is well before filing of consumer complaint before the Commission below, we feel it necessary to remove directions in respect of payment of cost of additional fittings and refurbishing of vehicle, to meet ends of justice.
- Accordingly, it is hereby ordered OP1/Appellant in A/65/2022 to refund only the cost of the vehicle i.e, Rs.11,24,394/- to the complainant by taking back the vehicle in question along with documents, within 02 months from the date of receipt of this order. Further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. OP1 is hereby directed to comply the order within 02 months from the date of receipt of the order. Failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of email sent by OP1 i.e.,17.12.2020 till payment of entire amount. The complaint against OP2 is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, impugned order passed by I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru stands modified and disposed off both Appeal Nos.65 and 254 of 2022.
- The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to Forum below for needful.
- Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member President *GGH* | |
