(Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)

(1)               This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29/01/2009 passed in Consumer complaint No. 81/2008, Mr.Shihir Vasantkumar Senjit Vs. M/s.Pandit Auto Ltd. & ors., by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (Forum in short).

(2)               It is a case about the defective goods i.e. bus of make 410 Tata 16 seator M/Bus manufactured by the opponent No.2, M/s.Tata Motors Ltd.  It is alleged by the respondent/original complainant that after he purchased it on 25/08/2007, he had noticed certain defects relating to the 5^th gear, wiper and clutch pedal.  The problem of 5^th gear was solved, but other problems remain there.  Again, On 18/11/2007 the complainant gave said vehicle for repairing with additional problem of pulling the vehicle on the left hand side and right hand side The opponent charged for wheel alignment @ `150/-.  The complaints were accordingly attended.  However, no satisfied with the outcome, the complainant filed the consumer complaint on 16/07/2008. 

(3)               The complaint was opposed by the opponents and it is submitted on their behalf that whatever the complaints existed/requested were duly attended. There is no deficiency in service on their part.  However, the Forum found substance in the complaint and awarded compensation of `5,85,000/- towards the value of the vehicle and further compensation of `10,000/- for mental agony.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, the opponents preferred this appeal.

(4)               We heard both the sides.  We make specific enquiry with the learned counsel of the appellant as to whether the inspection report of vehicle of R.B.Nagane & Associates is tendered in evidence as per provisional of Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The answer came in negative.  Said report is not substantiated by the affidavit of its maker and hence cannot be taken into consideration.  No other evidence to substantiate the case of alleged defects in the vehicle.  No manufacturing defect in vehicle is shown or established.  The vehicle already had running of 10,490 k.m.

(5)               From the statement of the respondent/original opponent itself, it is seen that whatever complaints were made were duly attended by the dealer.  Therefore, no deficiency in the service on the part of the dealer, M/s.Pandit Auto Ltd. could be alleged.

(6)               It may not be out of place to mention that during the pendancy of the appeal, report of the condition of vehicle was obtained from the R.T.O. and said authority as per its report dated 26/04/2011, referring to alleged defects found that all the defects were already rectified and the vehicle is in roadworthy condition.

(7)               For the reasons stated above, we find the complainant failed to substantiate its case for alleged deficiency in service in respect of defect in the vehicle.  In absence of  proof of any manufacturing defect, it is per se erroneous to direct to refund the price of the vehicle as the compensation.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order.

ORDER

(1)     Appeal is allowed.  Impugned order dated 29/01/2009 is set-aside and in the result the consumer complaint stands dismissed.

(2)     In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.  

Pronounced on 5^th June, 2011.