F.A. 762 OF  2007

             With F.A.775 OF 2007

                  Heard learned counsel for  the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.            These appeals are   filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to these appeals shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum and passed a common order.

3.                   The case  of the  complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant had purchased a Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero XL AC 9 STR  for self employment bearing Chasis  no.  and the engine no. of the vehicle  from the OP No.1 on 24.03.2006. The vehicle was financed  by the SBI,Angul. The complainant  allegedly paid Rs.5,36,302.00 to the OP. After purchase, the complainant found that  door and other parts of the vehicle became rusted and the passengers hesitate to hire the vehicle with regard to the problem of the vehicle and the complainant informed the OP but  the OP assured  to solve the problem after consulting  with Op No.2  by 04.11.2006.  The OP No.1 assured  the complainant  to do needful  till  completion of 4^th service  of the vehicle. Thereafter, the OP did not listen to it, for which the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP  No.1     filed the written version stating that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 04.05.2006 but the discount  offer was    upto 31,03.2006. Therefore, the OP No.1 is not liable to pay discount offer  to the complainant. The complainant informed  to OP No.1 who has tried his best effort to solve the problem. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

5.            The OP No.2 filed the written version stating that the case is not maintainable as the vehicle was used for commercial purpose.  It was sold on 24.03.2006 and handed over on 05.04.2006. There is no defect in the vehicle when the vehicle has come up for service, it has  done with  satisfactory note. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

6.             After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

                 Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ The opp.parties are directed to remove the defective body of the vehicle and pay compensation of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten thousand) only to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

7.                  Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.262/2007  submitted that   the vehicle was sold after 31.03.2006 for which the discount  of Rs.24,000/- was not availed to  the complainant. Further, he submitted  that the vehicle has given service to the satisfaction of the complainant. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law  involved in this case. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.                       It is alleged in the appeal memo in F.A.775/2007 that  he has ;paid the money on 31.03.2006   as per the money receipt  and the offer of discount  which was valid upto 31.03.2006  and the benefit of discount have been extended to the complainant. Learned District Forum should have directed respondent no.1 to extent full offer of Rs.14,000/- and Rs.10,000/-  but failed to do so by allowing only Rs.10,000/- payable. Therefore, he has filed the appeal against the respondent.

9.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.             It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question on payment of Rs.5,36,302/- from OP No.1. But no date is fixed on the said document.  The warranty card shows that  date of offer of discount is upto  31.03.2006. The complainant has proved all the documents above. On the otherhand, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that there is payment of the money only on 24.04.2006 for Rs.4,30,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant produced the delivery challan showing that the vehicle was delivered on 05.04.2006. From the above documents it appears that the purchase  amount  is paid only on 24.04.2006 and the vehicle was delivered on 05.04.2006, the sell although maintained on 31.03.2006 as per the bill but under  the Sales of Goods Act the delivery of the good is  considered  only to  complete the transanction of sale. Therefore, we are of the view that the vehicle was   not sold on 31.03.2006 and sold thereafter. Therefore, the question  of discount  on 31.03.2006 does not arise.  So far defect in vehicle is concerned, the job card does not show any dis-satisfaction by the complainant.

11.           In the result, we find that the learned District Forum without applying judicial mind passed the impugned order which is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside. The F.A.No.762/2007 is allowed. Since, the impugned order is set-aside the F.A.775/2007 is dismissed.  No cost.                

               Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

               DFR be sent back forthwith.

               Statutory amount be refunded.