Haryana

StateCommission

A/729/2018

JAGDISH CHANDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RADHEY SHYAM

20 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.729 of 2018

Date of the Institution: 05.06.2018

Date of Decision: 20.02.2019

 

Jagdish Chander aged 64 years s/o Sh. Ram Narain, R/o Village Dangar, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400039 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.      M/s Garg Motors, Dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited 9, K.M.Stone, Hisar Road, Near Sikandpur Chowk, Sirsa through its proprietor/partners.

3.      M/s Garg Motors, Opp. J.C.Mills, Sirsa Road, Fatehabad through its proprietor/partners.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judical Member

                    Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the complainant  had purchased  a scorpio jeep from the opposite party (O.P.) No.2 on 22.05.2015 for a sum of Rs.12,20,000/- and the same was registered with the Registration Authority, Fatehabad. He used to park the vehicle in question under roof, but, the front body part and windows of the vehicle got affected with rust and he took the vehicle in question to O.P.No.2 on 18.04.2017, which was rectified. After removing the dust, the vehicle lost originality of the vehicle.  Legal notice dated 03.05.2017 was got served through counsel and requesting the Ops to replace the vehicle.  Thus there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P.No.1 by filing a separate written version before the District Forum, in which, O.P.No.1  stated that vehicle in question was purchased on 22.05.2015 and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The defect of rusting was not covered under warranty. Thus there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps.

3.      O.P.Nos.2 and 3 filed separate reply.  O.P.Nos.2 and 3 alleged that rust on the vehicle has occurred due to negligence on the part of the complainant.  He made false pleadings in his complaint.  He did not serve any notice to O.P.Nos.2 and 3.  There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Preliminary objections about the jurisdiction, cause of action, concealment of material facts, maintainability of complaint, estoppal etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.04.2018 and directed  the O.P.No.1 to repaint the whole vehicle free of costs and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument has been advanced by Mr.R.S.Sharma, the  learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Vaibhav Narang, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the learned District Forum had not obtained report of the technical expert, the findings on merits unless and until there is a report of the expert not concurred, the observation may be recorded and hence, as such, it was prayed that in the given circumstances, the matter may be remanded back to the learned District Forum, Fatehabad with the directions that after obtaining the report of the expert about the manufacturing defect and then to decide the complaint afresh.

8.      However, no specific contention was raised on behalf of the respondent and has stated at bar that even if  the matter is remanded back to the learned District Forum to decide afresh after obtaining the report of the expert. The matter may be adjudicated afresh.

9.      Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant with that of the respondent, a perusal of the order passed by the learned District Forum dated 24.04.2018, it is evidently clear that the order or findings have been recorded after considering the material expert evidence. Even otherwise also since there are allegations regarding manufacturing defect, this could only be analyse or could be adjudicated after getting the report of the experts. Hence, the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 stands set aside for all intents and purposes and the matter is remitted back to the learned District Forum, Fatehabad to get the reports of the expert about the manufacturing defect or any other kind of the defect in the vehicle in question and then to decide the complaint afresh.

10.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Fatehabad on 29.03.2019 for further proceedings. 

 

February 20th, 2019        Manjula                  Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                    Member                 Judicial Member                                                              Addl.Bench            Addl.Bench          

S.K.