JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

No one is present for the complainant who was preceded ex parte vide order dated 27.02.2019. No one is present for the R-1 Bengal Automobile Services. R-3 State Bank of India, however, is represented by counsel.

2.      I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner and R-3 and have considered the record.

3.      The complainant purchased a minidor from respondent number 2 Bengal Automobile taking a loan from R-3 State Bank of India. The vehicle was purchased in January 2007. His primary grievance is that at the time of sale of the vehicle as well as in the documents given to him at that time it was represented to him that the vehicle being sold to him had been manufactured in the year 2006 whereas on registration of the vehicle it transpired that it had been manufactured in the year 2005. Another grievance of the complainant was that that there were some defects in the vehicle which was acknowledged by the seller Ms/ Bengal Automobile by way of a letter but the said defects were not removed. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the petitioner which is the manufacturer of the vehicle, M/s Bengal Automobile which had sold the vehicle to him as well as the State Bank of India as the parties to the consumer complaint.

4.      The consumer complaint was resisted by the petitioner company which denied having represented to the complainant is that the vehicle had been manufactured in the year 2006. It was admitted in the written version filed by the petitioner company that the vehicle had been manufactured in the year 2005. The petitioner also maintained that there was absolutely no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

5.      The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 05.02.2015 the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner company. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Commission.

6.      It is evident from the sale certificate issued by the dealer M/s Bengal Automobiles as well as from the  delivery letter issued by them to the complainant that at the time of the sale of the vehicle they had represented to the complainant that the vehicle being sold to him was a 2006 model meaning thereby that it had been manufactured in the year 2006. It is admitted by none other than the manufacture of the vehicle and is also evident from the registration certificate that the vehicle had in fact been manufactured in the year 2005. It is thus established that a misrepresentation was made to the complainant at the time of sale of the vehicle by claiming the said vehicle had been manufactured in the year 2006. The said misrepresentation was made by the seller M/s Bengal Automobiles and not by the petitioner company which is the manufacturer of the vehicle. There is no evidence or any other material to indicate that the dealer had misrepresented to the complainant in connivance with the petitioner company. Therefore, it will be difficult to hold that the petitioner company is responsible in any manner for the above referred misrepresentation as regards the year of manufacturing of the vehicle.

7.      Coming to the alleged defects of the vehicle admittedly no Automobile Engineer or any technical expert was produced by the complainant to prove that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. The letter by the dealer Bangal Automobiles to the complainant was issued on 06.02.2007 and is a handwritten letter on which the name of the author cannot be ascertained. It is stated in the letter that the minidor had starting trouble and the author felt that there was a pump problem. The author of this this letter was not produced as a witness nor was his affidavit filed by the complainant by way of evidence. Moreover, in the letter sent to the car dealer on 10.04.2007 the complainant had alleged so many problems in the vehicle. However only one specific defect was mentioned in the aforesaid letter and it was alleged that the colour of the vehicle  had been changed. There is no mention of any defect in the pump of the vehicle. If the original colour of the vehicle had been changed, it could be done by the car dealer and not by the manufacturer which had already delivered the vehicle to the dealer on 29.06.2005 more than one year before the vehicle was sold the complainant. It is also the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant applied for a loan on 13.02.2007 which no reasonable person would do if the vehicle had the trouble mentioned in the purported letter of the dealer dated 06.02.2007. Be that as it may, in the absence of an expert evidence it would be difficult to say the vehicle had manufacturing defects.

8.      Since no misrepresentation was made by the petitioner to the complainant and no manufacturing defect in the vehicle has been proved the petitioner company cannot be held liable to replace the vehicle by a new vehicle or to compensate the complainant in any manner.

9.      The Revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the consumer complaint qua the petitioner company alone stands dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that the order passed by the fora below to the extent the said order is directed against the dealer M/s Bangal Automobiles remains unaltered. The Revision Petition stands disposed of.