Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Appeal bearing Nos. A/18/2018 and A/500/2018 arise out of the order dated 09-11-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum in CC/23/2014.  The facts and circumstances of both these Appeals being identical, the same are disposed of through this common order.

The Complainant, Sri Biswajit Mondal moved the Ld. District Forum alleging supply of a defective vehicle by the OPs and non-rendering of proper after-sales-service to repair the same.

Notices issued to Sri Subhashish Pattanayek and Debyendu Khamaru being returned undelivered, paper publication was made to apprise them about the pendency of these Appeals.  In spite of said paper publication, as none of them turned up before this Commission, the Appeals were heard in their absence.

At the time of hearing, only the Ld. Advocates for the Rudra Automart Pvt. Ltd. and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. remained present.  They were heard at length and documents on record perused extensively.

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.  submitted that its technical team detected that owing to ‘hydrostatic lock’ the vehicle turned inoperative and since the same was not covered under the warranty, the Complainant was repeatedly asked to repair the defect on paid basis.  However, instead of issuing necessary work order, he took away the vehicle from the service centre.

Perusal of documents on record reveals that the Complainant purchased the vehicle on 08-05-2013 and on 06-09-2013, he witnessed problem with the vehicle for which the same was delivered to the workshop of Rudra Automart.  As the said workshop could not make any headway despite their repeated endeavour, the Company sent its expert to identify the problem.  It transpires from the copy of email dated 08-10-2013 sent by the Sr. Regional Customer Care Manager of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. that its technical team identified the issue as ‘hydrostatic lock’ and accordingly, it asked for the nod of the Complainant to dismantle the engine so as to prepare necessary estimate and carry out due repair. 

In this connection, it bears mentioning that M/s Rudra Automart Pvt. Ltd. vide its email dated 13-09-2013 sent its detail findings to M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. seeking due advice.  Subsequently, the Complainant was communicated about the findings of the technical team of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vide email dated 08-10-2013. 

Now, let us appreciate, whether or not the exact cause of malfunctioning was ‘hydrostatic lock’, that could only be conclusively determined provided the vehicle was  examined by an expert. For some obscure reasons, however, no such endeavour was made from the side of the Complainant to get the vehicle examined through an independent expert in the field.

The Consumer Protection Act clearly stipulates that in case alleged defects cannot be determined without proper examination, report from an expert/laboratory should be called for in order to derive at a definite findings in the matter. It is highly improper to decide technical matters resorting to surmises and conjecture.

In our considered opinion, examination of the vehicle is extremely crucial for judicious disposal of the dispute.  Accordingly, we are constrained to remand the case to the Ld. District Forum for fresh adjudication of the dispute after obtaining expert opinion in the matter. 

In view of this, both the Appeals stand allowed in part. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 11-03-2020.

Let the original copy of this order be kept in the case record of A/18/2018 and a photocopy thereof in A/500/2018.