Haryana

StateCommission

A/388/2016

SUPREME MOBILES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUDERSHAN PAL - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 388 of 2016

Date of Institution: 04.05.2016

Date of Decision : 06.12.2016

 

M/s Supreme Mobiles Limited (Authorised dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited) Loharu Road, Bhiwani through its Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite party No.1 

 Versus

 

1.      Sudershan Pal son of Sh. Prabhu Singh, resident of Village Bapora, Tehsil and Disst. Bhiwani.

                                                                   Respondent- Complainant

 

2.      Mahindra & Mahindra Finance, opposite B.D. Gupta Building, Hansi Road, Near Kirorimal Public School, Bhiwani, through its Manager.

                                     

                                      Respondent- Opposite Party No.2  

 

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Supreme Mobiles Limited-opposite party No.1 is in appeal against the order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and opposite party No. 1 was directed to replace the vehicle or refund the sale price alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      Sudershan Pal-complainant filed complaint submitting that he purchased the Mahindra vehicle bearing No. HR-61B-4667 on 27.11.2012.  It was financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance-opposite party No.2.  The vehicle had warranty of one year.  Within one year some defects occurred in the vehicle and it stopped while driving. Complainant made complaint in January, 2013.  Opposite party No.1-appellant has repaired the vehicle and assured that it would not create any problem.  On 02.05.2013 while driving from Devsar to Bhapoda, it again stopped and got repaired from mechanic. The mechanic told him that the vehicle has manufacturing defects. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking replacement of vehicle besides compensation.

3.      Opposite party No. 1 contested the complaint stating that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle it was got checked and repaired to his satisfaction and complainant had also executed a satisfaction note. It was stated that the complainant got the first service done when the vehicle had run 5423 Kilometer as against the prescribed 5000 kilometer. Similarly the second service was got done at 11776 kilometer.  It was stated that the complainant brought the vehicle on 02.05.2013 after it run 29453 kilometers though the third service was required to be got carried only at 20000 kilometer. Because the vehicle has overrun, therefore, the filter normally creates problem.  It was denied that vehicle has any manufacturing defect. Other allegations were also denied.

4.      Opposite party No. 2 did not contest the complaint.

5.      District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and issued directions to the appellant as mentioned in opening para of this order.

5.      Opposite party No.1 has come up in appeal.

6.      Complainant has himself placed DDR (Annexure-C-16) dated 30.06.2014 vide which the vehicle was reported to have been stolen though during Police investigation, it was found that the vehicle was in the possession of the financer i.e. opposite party No.2 since 30.06.2014.  Under these circumstances that though the opposite party No.1 has offered to get the vehicle repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant, however, since the complainant was no longer in the possession of the vehicle therefore, the same cannot be done.  The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that he has got repaired the vehicle from private mechanic on payment basis vide Bill (Annexure- C-5) during warranty period.  Learned Counsel for appellant offered to reimburse the said amount. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the manner that opposite party No.1-appellant is directed to pay Rs.5300/- along with interest at the rate of 9% from 15.05.2013 i.e. date of repair of vehicle till payment.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant after deducting Rs.5300/- plus interest as indicated above which shall be paid to complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 06.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

 

 

 

FA No. 388 of 2016

 

Present :    Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1

 

                  

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

 

 

06.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member