JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The petitioner/complainant purchased a Mahindra Xylo E-6 vehicle from the respondent-M/s. Shimla Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.7,55,000/-. Claiming a defect in the reverse gear the petitioner/complainant alleges to have taken the vehicle to the workshop of M/s. Shimla Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.. According to the complainant instead of changing the entire gear box only the reverse gear was changed. The complainant further alleged that thereafter the steering system of the vehicle developed a snag and had to be changed. Subsequently, the oil started leaking from the rear wheels resulting in the break system not working effectively. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop where the leathers were changed instead of changing the break system. The complainant also alleged that once the shockers and rubber boots of the shockers also developed defect and every time he took the vehicle to the workshop of M/s. Shimla Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., he was charged for the repairs. It was also claimed by him that though the vehicle had been manufactured in 2009 it was sold to him as 2010 model. The petitioner/complainant approached the Mandi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the District Forum) seeking the following reliefs:

(i)      the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the vehicle of the complainant of model 2009 to a new model of 2012 or to pay an amount of Rs.7,55,000/- (towards the cost of vehicle) along with Rs.1,01,409/- as other expenditures of vehicle including premium, service charges, etc. and take back the defected old model vehicle from company.

(ii)      The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental harassment, agony and deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenditure.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondents on several grounds. They denied the allegation of the complainant that a 2009 vehicle was sold to him as a 2010 vehicle. It was pointed out in the reply that the vehicle had met with an accident at least two times before the filing of the complaint and most of the amounts referred in the bills which were Annexure C-8 to C-36 to the complaint had been spent either on repair and replacement of the parts affected by accident or due to routine replacement of oil at the time of periodical service. It was also pointed out that though as per the service manual the vehicle was required to be serviced after every 5,000 kilometers every time, the complainant did not get it serviced for 20,000 kilometers at a stretch, which led to excessive were and tear of the vehicle.

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 06-09-2013, directed the opposite parties to refund the price of the vehicle to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.1-M/s. Shimla Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. approached the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) by way of an appeal. A separate appeal was filed by the manufacturer of the vehicle-M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.. Vide impugned order dated 04-03-2014 both the appeals were allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside.

5.      The complainant/petitioner has two primary complaints, the first being that a vehicle manufactured in the year 2009 was sold to him as a vehicle manufactured in the year 2010 and the second complaint is that the vehicle required frequent replacement of various components which indicates that it had some manufacturing defect in it. Yet another, though small complaint is that he was charged for replacing the components.

6.      As far as the first complaint is concerned, there is no evidence to prove that the vehicle sold to the complainant/petitioner was manufactured in the year 2009. It transpired during course of hearing before the District Forum that one component of the vehicle i.e. inter cooler of the turbocharger had been manufactured in October 2009 whereas the hosepipes of the engine were also manufactured in the year 2009. The fact that a few components of the vehicle were manufactured in the year 2009 does not mean that the vehicle itself was produced only in that year. The date of manufacturing of a vehicle is the date on which the vehicle is taken out of the factory of the manufacturer after paying excise duty on it. The case of the respondent is that the vehicle in question was manufactured sometime in January 2010. Obviously they have to procure various components before January 2010, in order to complete the process of the manufacturing the vehicle. The intercooler of turbocharger and the hose pipes manufactured in the year 2009 must have been purchased and used by the manufacturer while producing the vehicle in January 2010, but that does not mean that the vehicle itself came to be manufactured in the year 2009. Therefore, we find no merit in the complaint made in this regard.

7.      As regards the complaint of defects in the vehicle, the petitioner/complainant has not been able to point out any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or in any component which still needs replacement. In the event of their being a manufacturing defect in a component used in the vehicle the manufacturer is required to replace only that particular component and not the entire vehicle. The petitioner has not filed any job card issued at the time of repair/servicing of the vehicle, to show that any component of the vehicle was found to be having a manufacturing defect. In any case, this is petitioner/complainant’s own case that the reverse gear, steering system as well as leathers of the brakes were changed when they developed snag. As noted by the State Commission, between 16-03-2010 to 26-05-2011 the vehicle was taken to the workshop for routine services and while providing such services, oils were replaced and some parts which had got worn out due to normal use of the vehicle like clutch plates, brake leathers, etc., were changed. It can hardly be disputed that some components of a motor vehicle do get worn out with the use of the vehicle and the extent of such wearing out of the component would depend upon a number of  factors such as quality of the driving, road conditions, maintenance of the vehicle and the terrain in which the vehicle was driven. Therefore, it is not uncommon to replace such worn out components at the time of servicing the vehicle. We would like to note here that though the vehicle was required to be serviced after running every 5000 kilometers but the complainant/petitioner got it serviced after it had run for 20000 kilometers. Had the aforesaid worn out components been defective since manufacture, they would not have lasted till the time they were replaced.

8.      The State Commission noted that the vehicle was taken to the workshop on 02-06-2011 when it had got damaged due to some external impact and at that time the front fender of the vehicle required replacement. The aforesaid damage to the vehicle cannot be said to be a manufacturing defect. The State Commission found that the bill dated 14-06-2011 pertained to the repairs carried out when the vehicle met with an accident, necessitating change of the front fog lamp, head lamp assembly, front bumper, etc., besides requiring denting and painting. The State Commission also noticed that the bill Exhibit C-23 pertained to replacement of head lamp and front bumper which had got impacted due to the external impact of the vehicle. The same was the position with respect to the Annexure C-26 which was an invoice pertaining to replacement of tail lamp assembly. The State Commission also considered the invoice Annexure C-26 pertaining to purchase of new battery Annexure C-27 pertaining to repairs by Baba Service Station, Hamirpur when tie road and both ball joints, etc., were changed. The State Commission noted that another invoice Exhibit C-29 pertained to repair necessitated by some accident which impacted the front bumper, etc.. By that the vehicle had already covered a distance of 85,016 kilometers. The defective components could not have survived the running of 85,016 kilometers. It was in these circumstances that the State Commission found that the vehicle did not have any major defect and the complainant was charged only for carrying out routine repairs and replacement of the components which needed replacement, having got worn out. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find no ground to take a view different from the view taken by the State Commission. There is no material before us from which we may conclude that the vehicle suffered from any particular manufacturing defect. Therefore, no ground for replacement of the vehicle or for refunding the price of the vehicle to the petitioner/complainant was made out. Had there been some manufacturing defect in the vehicle it would not have run for as much as 85016 kilometers as on 17-12-2011. At a later date it was found that the vehicle had run 97,488 kilometers. The vehicle is still in possession of the complainant and must have been used further. In these circumstances, the finding of fact recorded by the State Commission cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

9.      We find no merit in the revision petition and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the same is hereby dismissed.