Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/32/2015

M/s. Vinayaka Hygiene Products - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. M.N. Motors Pvt. Ltd., ( Authorized Mahindra Dealers ) - Opp.Party(s)

B.Srinivas Rao

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                Date of filing:   07.05.2015

                                                                                                Date of Order: 26.02.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                         PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M., .. PRESIDENT (FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

                 Friday, the 26^th day of February, 2016

 

C.C.No.32 /2015

Between:-

 

M/s. Vinayaka Hygiene Products, Represented by

its Managing Partner, Sri Pepakayala Lakshmana Swamy,

S/o. Ganga Raju, age 41 years, Occupation: Business,

Resident of Door No.1-1-, Dwarapudi Road, Z. Medapadu,

Mandapeta, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.                       …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  M/s. M.N. Motors Pvt. Ltd., (authorized Mahindra Dealers),

      Represented by its Authorized Officer, K.V. Swathy,

      # 88-60-2, Near Future Kids School, NH-16, Opp: RTC Colony,

      Rajahmundry.

 

2)  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., represented by its Managing Director,

      Survey No.135, Sudawadi Village, Maval Taluka, Pune District,

      Maharastra.                                                                                   …        Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 16.02.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri D. Karunakar Raju, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party having been set ex-parte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

O R D E R

(Per Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, Member) 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of vehicle or to return the vehicle with good condition; pay Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- as costs and pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental agony.

2.         The case of the complainant is as follows:-  It is submitted that the complainant purchased a Goods carriage vehicle from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., i.e. the 2^nd opposite party on 2.3.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,21,690/- through their dealer i.e. the 1^st opposite party. The Mahindra Maxximo BSIII Goods carriage, thereafter developed certain fault for which repeated complaints were made to the opposite party.  However, the opposite party made no effort to rectify the said faults. The service given by the opposite parties in relation to the Fuel feed pump w/o.FLS is very poor. The complainant has not claiming any refund of the price of the “Fuel Feed pump or replacement of the auto, but has claiming that the service of the opposite party was deficient. The defects were pointed out by the complainant many times to the opposite party, but the same have not been rectified by them till date. The complainant is an owner of Mahindra Maxximo BSIII goods carriage forced to go to a workshop again and again for repairs or write letters regarding defects to the dealer. Various defects were pointed out by the complainant to the opposite party from time to time.  From the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle, it has been giving more and more troubles. Even after carrying the above repairs, the vehicle went off the road. When the vehicle was brought to the shed of the 1^st opposite party, he has given an estimate of the repairs to a tune of Rs.46,154/-. It is rather very surprising that the defects could not be rectified by the opposite parties inspite of the complainant taken the vehicle to the workshop many times. Finally, the said vehicle was stopped working with the same engine problem in the 1^st week of December, 2013. The same was informed on 6.2.2013 to the 1^st opposite party. The said dealer has taken the vehicle from the complainant’s possession on the same day and kept in the workshop of the 1^st opposite party even till today. The defects were pointed out during warranty period of the engine also. It is the duty of the opposite parties to get the defects rectified. The 1^st opposite party failed to remove the defects pointed out by the complainant. That a complaint was delivered at the office of the 1^st opposite party on 29.9.2014, inspite of which, the opposite party did not send any service engineer to rectify the faults. Due to the negligent acts of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered loss and due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss of professional practice. Hence, the complaint.  

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and denied the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The allegation that the goods carriage thereafter develop certain fault for which repeated complaints were made to the opposite parties and the opposite parties made no effort to rectify the said fault are not true and correct. There is no deficiency of service by the opposite party and the defects of the complainant vehicle is only due to over load. The allegations that the defects could not be rectified by the opposite parties inspite of the complainant taken the vehicle to the workshop many times. Finally, the said vehicle was stopped working with the same engine problem in the 1^st week of December, 2013. The same was informed on 6.12.2013 to the 1^st opposite party. The said dealer has taken the vehicle from the complainant’s possession on the same day and kept in the workshop of the 1^st opposite party even till today. The defects were pointed out during warranty period of the engine also and the 1^st opposite party failed to remove the defects pointed out by the complainant are not true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.

The opposite party submits that the opposite party gave good service to the complainant by rectifying the defects from time to time. The opposite party further submits that the complainant got filed the present complaint for a wrongful gain and with false allegations. This opposite party submits that the goods carriage is out of warranty and the opposite party given estimation for repair of the said vehicle and the complainant has not given his willingness for the said estimation and in the meanwhile got filed the said complaint for wrongful gain. There is no cause of action for the complaint and the alleged cause of action is not and correct. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.         The proof affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and Exs.A1 to A8 have been marked for the complainant.  Proof affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st opposite party.

5.         Heard both sides. Both filed written arguments.    

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

         

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:-  As per the available record, the complainant herein is the Managing Partner of M/s.Vinayaka Hygiene Products, purchased Mahindra Maxximo BSIII, diesel goods carriage from the 2^nd opposite party on 2.3.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,21,690/- and the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant and the same was registered as good carriage with the RTA authorities vide Ex.A1. The complainant alleged that the 2^nd opposite party is a deficient in service with regard to the fuel feed pump and working of the said FLS is very poor and further alleged that some other defects pointed out by the complainant many times to the 1^st opposite party, but the 1^st opposite party failed to rectify the said defects.

            It is observed that as per tax invoice dt.25.2.2013 vide Ex.A2, the 2^nd opposite party collected an amount of Rs.2,621/- towards spare parts from the complainant, invoice dt.13.4.2013 for Rs.6,755/- vide Ex.A3 towards spare parts and others, Tax invoice dt.23.4.2013 for Rs.169/- vide Ex.A4, Tax invoice dt.31.5.2013 for Rs.142/- under Ex.A5, tax invoice dt.13.6.2013 for Rs.278/- vide Ex.A6, Tax invoice dt.22.8.2013 for Rs.19,445/- vide Ex.A7 and Tax invoice dt.7.11.2013 for Rs.1,159/- and tax invoice dt.16.10.2013 for Rs.9,197/- vide Ex.A8 for fuel feed pump charges. It is further observed that the above said amounts collected by the 1^st opposite party towards spare parts and labour charges only. The complainant further alleged that the above said vehicle went off the road during June, 2014 despite rectification of defects and the 1^st opposite party once again given an estimation of repairs to a tune of Rs.48,154/-. Finally, the vehicle stopped working with engine problem and the same was informed to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant on 6.12.2013, but there is no evidence filed for the same.

            The complainant further alleged that all the above said defects were incurred to the Mahindra Maxximo Goods carriage during the warranty period, but no documentary evidence filed in this regard by the complainant. Whereas the opposite party contended that the defects of the vehicle is only due to over load and the 1^st opposite party submitted that the opposite party is not deficient in their service rectified the problems from time to time. Further, the 1^st opposite party contended that the said goods carriage is out of warranty and so, this opposite party given estimation for repairs of the said vehicle and the complainant has not given his willingness for the same and filed this complaint for wrongful gain. It is observed that the vehicle was purchased on 2.3.2012 and all the above said amounts paid to the 1^st opposite party towards spare parts and other charges from the complainant, which were wear and tear charges as part of regular maintenance of goods carriage.

            With the above said discussion, we observed that the said goods carriage in dispute is purchased for the purpose of transportation of hygiene products by the complainant in the name of their firm by name M/s. Vinayaka Hygiene Products for their day to day business and so, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the same is not covered under the definition of consumer under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.             

 

   

8. POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the   26^th day of February, 2016.

    

                  Sd/-xxx                                                                                   Sd/-xxx

             MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                                 FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1    dt/2.3.2012       Insurance Certificate issued by Oriental Insurance Company

   (certificate of registration document).

Ex.A2    dt/25.2.2013    Repairing and spare part cost bill issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3    dt/13.4.2013     Repairing and spare part cost bill issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A4    dt/23.4.2013     General charges bill issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A5    dt/31.5.2013     Rubber insulator cost bill issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A6    dt/13.6.2013     Clutch cable assembly cost bill issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A7    dt/22.8.2013     Engine overhauling bill issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A8    dt/16.10.2013   Fuel feed pump bill issued by the 1^st opposite party.

 

 

FOR OPPOSTIE PARTIES:-    - Nil -

 

                 Sd/-xxx                                                                                      Sd/-xxx

             MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT (FAC)