(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) Heard Adv.Uttamchand for the appellant and Adv.Ravi Shiralkar for the respondent.
(2) This appeal is directed as against the order dated 10/10/2006 in Consumer Complaint No.105/2005 (Madhav Mohan Sabnis Vs. Ford India Ltd. & ors.) passed by District Forum, Kolhapur (‘district forum’ in short). The district forum while allowing the consumer complaint filed by the present respondent/complainant directed present appellant/opponent to replace the vehicle (Ford Ikon 1.3 CLSI Model) or alternatively pay an amount of `5,39,998/- to the complainant together with an amount of `5,000/- for mental agony and `1,000/- as costs of litigation.
(3) Aggrieved by this impugned order, the appellant/opponent preferred this appeal on the ground that during the warranty period, all the mechanical defects pointed out by the complainant were attended to regularly without any delay and at the request of the complainant the warranty period of one year was further extended for another two years. During extended warranty period, all the defects including service to the vehicle were carried out. District Forum did not appreciate the evidence placed on record and arrived at wrong conclusion and passed the impugned order as mentioned in para 2, supra.
(4) The appellant did not press the appeal against the respondent No.2 and such an endorsement has been made by the appellant in this behalf in the appeal memo itself. Therefore, the appeal against respondent No.2 stood dismissed.
(5) Undisputed facts are that:
The complainant purchased the vehicle Ford Ikon 1.3 CLSI model on 15/05/2002. Initially, there was warranty period of one year, which was extended at the request of the complainant for another two years. During the validity period of warranty, the defects pointed out to the appellant were attended as per job cards produced on record in the authorized garage of the appellant/opponent. Delivery of the vehicle was received in good mechanical condition by the complainant together with operative manual of the vehicle.
(6) On number of occasions, the mechanical problems noticed by the complainant were attended and spare parts as required were replaced by the appellant as and when required. However, the chronic problem of gears and noise with suspension and steering continued to be in the vehicle and therefore the complainant requested the appellant No.1 to replace the vehicle as chronic problems referred to herein have not been fully resolved to operate the said vehicle as per the guidelines given in the manual and did not care the vehicle as per the guidelines of the manual. The District Forum relied on the complaint that on numerous dates the vehicle was required to be sent and attended for various defects during the warranty period and arrived at conclusion that there was manufacturing defect and allowed the consumer complaint. On perusal of the record, especially when the chronic problem of gear, speed, suspension, steering were not resolved, the complainant did not produce any expert opinion to establish the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Though such evidence was not produced before the District Forum, the impugned order was passed allowing the consumer complaint. What we observe that as and when (end number of times) there were operational problems in the vehicle have been attended diligently by the appellant and each time the problem was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant when that vehicle was received by the complainant after attending mechanical defect.
(7) Submission of the learned advocate for the appellant that there is a conclusive proof on record by way of various job cards demonstrating rendering of services promptly and effectively by attending to the various defects/problems in the vehicle pointed out to them by the complainant, this fact has not been appreciated by the District Forum, is acceptable. The onus to produce expert opinion and tender the same by way of evidence was not duly discharged by the complainant. District Forum ignored this important legal provision and erroneously passed impugned order allowing the consumer complaint.
(8) In the facts and circumstances narrated above, we find that the appellant did discharge their obligations by attending promptly all the mechanical problems from time to time and therefore no deficiency in service can be attributed against the appellant, especially, as there is no evidence on record to establish manufacturing defect in the vehicle. On the request of the complainant, the warranty period was extended for another two years after completion of 5168 kms mileage as on 05/05/2003 which indicates that the complainant with alleged problems in the vehicle used the vehicle for almost a period of one year i.e. from the date of delivery 15/05/2002 to 05/05/2003 and sought to extend warranty period after running of vehicle for 5168 kms mileage. This fact demonstrates that the complainant was willing and continued to possess and use the said vehicle by extending another two years warranty. In view of this fact, the claim of complainant alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle is noticed, is baseless as not supported by any expert opinion. Hence, the impugned order deserved to be set aside. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal No.2602/06 is allowed.
(2) Impugned order dated 10/10/2006 in Consumer Complaint No.105/2005 passed by District Forum, Kolhapur is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the consumer complaint No.105/2005 stands dismissed.
(3) Under the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 24th August, 2012.
PGG
