Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Judicial Member:

(1)          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 27.07.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.156/2007, Shri M.L. Ghosh V/s Smt.Prajakta & Ors., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum below’ in short).

(2)          It is a dispute against the transporter who failed to deliver the car transported in an intact condition.  Since while in transshipment the car suffered certain damage due to accident, Forum below partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Appellants/original Opposite Parties to remove the deficiencies in the car at their costs.  It further directed to pay compensation of `3,000/- towards mental torture and `500/- as costs.  Feeling aggrieved thereby the original Opposite Parties preferred this appeal.

(3)          Admit and heard forthwith with the consent of  parties.

(4)          In the instant it is not disputed that, the Car after carrying necessary repairs, was received back by the Respondent/original Complainant on 02.05.2007.  It is alleged by Appellants/Original Opposite Parties that while receiving the possession of the car, the Complainant thoroughly examined the car, conducted the trial by taking drive for about half an hour and thereafter, acknowledged having received the said car in OK condition.  This factual situation finds support from the affidavit of Mr.Babulal Sharma, an Authorised Officer of Appellant Company. 

(5)          In his complaint after about an year, the Complainant raised a dispute that there was some sound when the steering wheel was turned, the tyres were making a screeching sound, the mileage had become pathetic, steering wheel handle cover was missing etc.  According to him he has paid an amount of `26,759/- as per the receipt placed on record.  Those repairs were undertaken and carried out on 31.10.2008 i.e. almost after an year after the delivery was taken from the appellants, supra. It may be noted that the Car is the used car at the time of the repairs in question.  Once receiving the possession of the Car in OK condition, even if certain repairs were required later on (i.e. on 31.10.2008), and for which expenses  of `26,759/- were required to be incurred, there is no nexus established between these repairs and alleged deficiency related to transportation event.  Under the circumstances, no deficiencies on the part of the transporter can be claimed.  The reasoning of the Forum below is rather hypothetical and based upon no evidence.  Under the circumstances, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal is allowed.

  (ii)   Impugned order dated 27.07.2009 is set aside and in the result, original Complaint bearing no.156/2007 stands dismissed.