Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 11/02/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.635/2008, Mr.Anoop Gupta and another v/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. and another; passed by Mumbai Suburban District Forum. The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service/manufacturing defect in the car purchased by the complainant, which was manufactured by respondent no.1/opponent no.1- M/s.Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. and purchased through respondent no.2/opponent no.2-M/s.Autograph Cars (I) Pvt.Ltd. The consumer complaint stood dismissed and hence the appeal is filed by the original complainant.
Heard both the parties. It is the grievance of the complainants as appears from the statement made that the Skoda car which was purchased on 20/06/2006 was required repairs on and often. It had a problem with air conditioning unit, which was developed on 03/10/2006 and, thereafter, further problem with pollen filter and air filters surfaced on 18/12/2006. Air conditioning problem was resurfaced on 25/04/2007, which was got repaired. On 10/05/2008, on receiving some problem the car was again towed to the workshop of respondent no.2/opponent no.2-M/s.Autograph Cars (I) Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that the car was not properly repaired. On 28/06/2008, Opponent no.2 dealer raised bill of `25,340/- as per invoice dated 15/07/2008 for repairs. However, complainant alarmed with the previous experience, refused to pay the same and to take the delivery of the car. Car since not replaced, this consumer complaint was filed.
The forum found that the complainants failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the car and were also not justified in refusing to take the delivery of the car after repairs.
On the basis of the material placed before the forum, we find that there is hardly any material to show that the car had a manufacturing defect. Problem with the air conditioning unit when arose was attended and got repaired. On the last occasion (of repairs) also whatever problems arose were got repaired and since it was a paid service, a bill accordingly was raised by respondent no.2/opponent no.2 which according to complainants, they in their own wisdom decided not to pay and take delivery of the car. Since it was a paid service, there was no reason for the complainants to refuse to take delivery of the car after paying the repair charges. Forum was right in holding so.
As far as manufacturing defect is concerned, there is hardly any evidence led, as stated earlier, to substantiate such claim. On 07/03/2012 appellant tried to file documents including one expert report. However, such filing of document is not permissible in appeal without seeking permission and that too after justifying such production of late stage in appeal. Respondent no.1/opponent no.1 rightly opposed said application. Since no reason is given as to why those documents were not produced before the forum during the trial, there is no question to get admitted those documents at the appeal stage.
Thus, we find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the forum. Per se, there is no reason to admit the appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
(1) Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.
(2) In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 12th December, 2012.
