Per – Hon’ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
Heard the Appellant in person and Adv. Ashutosh Marathe on behalf of the Respondent.
[2] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) takes an exception to an order dated 18/3/2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2009, Mr. Motiram Popatrao Gawade Vs. Executive Director (Commercial Vehicles), Tata Motors Ltd.
[3] The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The Complainant had purchased a truck manufactured by the Respondent/original Opponent, namely – Tata Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Opponent’ for the sake of brevity) on 9/4/2008 for consideration of `14,85,392/-. It is alleged by the Complainant that because of defect in lift axle of the said vehicle, there is a problem in taking the vehicle in reverse and it affects in damaging the tyres of the vehicle. He further alleged that he had pointed out defects in the vehicle to M/s. Bafna Automotive, who is an authorized dealer of the Opponent. However, M/s. Bafna Automotive failed to rectify the defect. Similarly, at the time of third and fourth servicing, he had pointed out the aforesaid defects. However, the defects were not removed to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Alleging that the aforesaid defects are manufacturing defects and amounts to deficiency in service, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid to the Opponent together with incidental charges.
[4] The Opponent contested the complaint by filing its written version and contended that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’. The Opponent further contended that they have repaired the defects pointed out by the Complainant and the vehicle is not having manufacturing defect. The Opponent further stated that to prove his case that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect, the Complainant has not adduced evidence of a technical expert. The Opponent has further stated that the Complainant had carried out unauthorized changes in the vehicle and hence, there were certain defects and those defects are rectified by the Opponent. Thus, the Opponent has raised a contention to the effect that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
[5] The District Forum, after perusing the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of the advocates observed that the Complainant failed to prove his case. The District Forum further observed that the opinion of the R.T.O. and Kelkar Auto Works filed by the Complainant cannot be considered as an expert opinion. In the alleged expert opinions filed by the Complainant, there is no specific opinion that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. Hence, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is against this order that the Complainant has filed present appeal.
[6] Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the vehicle on 9/4/2008 for consideration of `14,85,392/- from the Opponent. It is the case of the Complainant that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. It is the responsibility of the Complainant to prove that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect. To prove his case, the Complainant has filed opinions of R.T.O. and Kelkar Auto Works. However, nowhere in their opinions, they have opined that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect. In support of these two opinions, the Complainant has not filed affidavits of these persons. From the so-called opinions filed by the Complainant, it cannot be construed that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The District Forum after taking into consideration the evidence placed on the record has rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Complainant. The order passed by the District Forum is just and proper. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 12th January, 2012
