1.      The complainant filed this complaint in order to recover compensation in the sum of Rs.1.00  Crore or for direction to the dealer and manufacturer (o.p.No.1 & 2 ) of the subject School-Bus to replace the School-Bus by new School-Bus in the larger interest of justice and in the larger interest fare trade practice . 

2.      The case of the complainant is that they have purchased School-Bus from the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to transport school children 34 in number, on city route for purchase price of Rs.14.00 Lacs. Sale certificate was issued accordingly in Format No.21 in accordance with Rule 47 (Motor Vehicle Rules). The vehicle bearing Chassis No.MB-1PAEF-CODESL-6658 and bearing Engine No.DSEZ-203725 was to be registered with opposite party No.4 – A.R,.T.O. with details in the prescribed format (C-3). The vehicle was also insured as required.

3.      Despite application for registration of the School-Bus o.p.No.4 found many defects which were noted in their certificate of inspection of the vehicle (C-7) in the complaint proceeding.

4.      Initially, the complaint was lodged with the National Commission for claim regarding 1.00 Crore compensation etc. but it was disposed of as withdrawn as according to learned National Commission, complaint is required to be filed before the State Commission.

5.      The complaint was contested by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 on the ground that bus was required to be registered by the ARTO, Gondia and the defects found by them would not impute viability upon the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to replace the bus.

6.      Opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 appears formal party. Opposite party No.3 is the financer of the vehicle and as opposite party No.4 has statutory duty to inspect the vehicle and to ensure that motor vehicle is free from defects apparent on the inspection, more particularly when the vehicle was to be used as a School-Bus to carry school children from their residences to school and from school to their residence (to & fro).

7.      When a consumer buys a new vehicle, it is reasonably and legitimately expected that it would be duly registered and it would be free from defects for the use the same and file for roadworthiness thereof. Therefore, it was duty of the seller of the vehicle - manufacturer as well as dealer of the vehicle - to ensure that School-Bus is delivered duly registered and in roadworthy condition. It is under these circumstances, we cannot find fault with A.R.T.O., Gondia who found defects in the vehicle and issued certificate as to defects noted.  It was duty of dealer and manufacturer to ensure that new vehicle must be delivered in a defect-free and roadworthy condition. Dealer and A.R.T.O. need to cooperate with each other for this duty towards consumer.

8.      We find that opposite party Nos.1 & 2 indulged in deficiency in service as also Unfair Trade Practice in the facts & circumstances of the case for failureso to deliver a branded new vehicle in a defect-free roadworthy condition despite having accepted full price of vehicle in the sum of Rs.14.00 Lacs.

9.      Opposite party Nos.1 & 2 did not attend the hearing of the complaint though they have filed their written submission, which are considered by us.

10.    In our view, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 are liable to replace the old defective vehicle by a new vehicle which must be defect-free and shall be delivered in roadworthy fit condition.

11.    For delay as well as physical & mental harassment of the complainant and loss of enjoyment of motor vehicle we award damages in the sum of Rs.25,000/- payable to the complainant.  We also award cost of the litigation in the sum of Rs.25,000/- payable by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 jointly & severally to the complainant. Opposite party Nos.3 & 4 were joined as formal parties. We only direct opposite party No.4 to cooperate for the registration of the vehicle to be replaced to ensure that it is defect-free and roadworthy and shall be delivered duly registered to the complainant from the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 within three months.  We, however, exonerate opposite party Nos.3 & 4 from any liability towards complainant other than duty which we pointed out.

Complaint is allowed accordingly.

If vehicle is not replaced within three months from the date of this order, the amount of price of 14 Lacs and dues towards cost & compensation shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the decision till realization.

At this stage Advocate Mr S D Harode appeared for opposite party Nos.1 & 2.  We recorded his presence at final hearing.