Complainant present in person
Opponent through Lrd Adv. Deshpande
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(31/10/2013)
This complaint is fled by the complainant against the opponent company for deficiency in service and defective goods. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainants are residents of Wanorie, Kondhwa Road, Pune. The opponent is dealing in selling vehicle named as “Nebula Automotive Pvt. Ltd.” The complainant had seen the website of the opponent, in which the opponent had made the representation about the product named, “ATV”, i.e. “All Terrain Vehicles”. That means, it can be used for rough services. The complainant had visited the showroom of the opponent and after taking test drive, the complainant purchased the said vehicle for Rs. 1,10,000/- on 19/5/2012. When the product was brought at the residence of the complainant, the opponent had tried to obtain acknowledgement on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/- stating that, he is fully satisfied with the vehicle and all the responsibility of the vehicle shall be with him. It also insisted the complainant to give undertaking that he will not claim any warranty and free service from the opponent. The complainant has refused to furnish the undertaking as demanded by the opponent, opponent had left the vehicle without collecting acknowledgement. On the next day, he called the opponent and informed them that, the vehicle has stopped working and there was noise coming while proceeding ahead. The complainant had suspected about the quality of the vehicle and requested to take back the same. On the next day, the opponent had sent their representative for resolving problem, but the problem was not resolved. The complainant requested to take back the vehicle and refund the price of Rs. 1,10,000/-. But the opponent did not give
response, hence complainant has filed this complaint. He has claimed refund of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with interest, as well as compensation
for deficiency in service to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has also asked cost of the complaint to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.
2] The opponent resisted the claim by filing written version, in which it has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. The fact as regards visit of the complainant to the show room on 17/5/2012 is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. There is no dispute of obtaining undertaking on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. The opponent had denied that the product has stopped working immediately. According to the opponent, there is no warranty given by the opponent, hence complainant is not entitled for refund of the price of the product. The opponent never refused to repair the said vehicle and there is no deficiency in service. The opponent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether opponent has caused deficiency in service by supplying defective product and by giving faulty services to the complainant? | In the affirmative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
4] The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had visited the show-room of the opponent and after taking test drive in the campus of the opponent, purchased ATV”, i.e. “All Terrain Vehicle” from the opponent. It is also not in much dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- for the said product. But, when the said product was used by him, he found that the said vehicle is faulty. There are manufacturing defects, such as making noise while driving and stopped working immediately. All these facts were informed to the opponent immediately. It reveals from the copy of the stamp of Rs. 100/-, which was supplied to the complainant, that the opponent was insisted for undertaking that the complainant can not ask any warranty or service from the opponent and the purchaser alone is responsible for anything happened to the product. This undertaking is sufficient to hold that the product was defective and the opponent has provided faulty service to the
complainant. It s very difficult to accept the argument of the opponent that, as no warranty is given to the complainant, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. It is significant to note that, the price of the product is Rs. 1,10,000/- and which was not used even for 24 hours, then the legitimate inference can be drawn, that there is manufacturing defect in the product. Hence, I held that the complainant has proved that the opponent has caused deficiency in service and defects in the goods. The complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the product as well as compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the litigation. Considering above discussion, I answer accordingly and pass following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent
has caused deficiency in service by
supplying defective product as well as
not providing proper services to the
complainant.
3. The opponent is directed to take back
the said product from the residence of
the complainant and refund an amount
of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs. One Lac Ten Thousand
only), Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand
only) towards compensation for deficiency
in service and Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand
only) towards cost of the litigation, within
six weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
4. Copies of this order be furnished to the
parties free of cost.
5. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 31/10/2013
