DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………………….
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 9th day of April 2018.
C.C.No.09 of 2017.
Smt. Chandrakanti Guru, age-37 years wife of Manoj Guru,
Resident of Thikadarpara, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S & Dist-
Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
M/S. EICHER Limited, represented through its Manager,
VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIMITED, Plot No.2325/
3656/2335, SambalpurTown, Unit No.12, Village-Remed
Sambalpur-312001.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv. for the complainant-M/S. B.K.Nanda & Associates.
Adv. for the Opp.Party -Sri L.Padhi.
Date of filing of the case-14.03.2017
Date of order -09.04.2018.
ORDER.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1. The case of the complainant is that, she had purchased a Eicher bus from the O.P in December 2014 vide Regd.No.0D-03-C-5013. The said bus was warranted for a period of 36 months for the defects in its engine and transmission. During the subsistence of the warranty the said bus was broke down, due to the defects in the engine at Agalpur on dt.8.12.2016.To this the complainant intimated the O.P and after two days, two mechanics came but did not removed the defects in the engine. Thereafter a team of 4 mechanics came and found that there is inherent defect in the engine and they took the engine to Sambalpur for repair. The complainant alleges that, after repair the O.P demanded Rs 33,500/- and received the same from the complainant amounting to deficiency in service. Further the complainant alleges that, due to the negligent act of the O.P the bus was lying idle for a period of 15 days for which she has sustained a financial loss of Rs 45,000/- .Hence the complaint.
2. The O.P contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P: denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that, the bus was broke down due to the negligence of the complainant as she has not maintained the bus as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and hence the break down of the bus did not cover the warranty. Accordingly repair charges were demanded and the same was paid by the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
3. Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case the learned Advocate for O.P raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case and submitted that the complainant used the bus for commercial purpose and hence she is not a consumer. On the other hand the learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, since the dispute is relating to demand of charges during warranty period the case is maintainable in this forum.
4. Perused the material available on record. Admittedly the bus of the complainant was broke down during warranty period and the mechanics of the O.P repaired the same at Sambalpur and demanded charges of Rs 33,500/- which was paid by the complainant. Therefore the issue is whether there is any deficiency in service in demanding repair charges by the O.P. Time and again it has been held by the Hon”ble National Commission, that even though an equipment is purchased for a commercial purpose, if there is a defect or deficiency in service during warranty period, then a consumer complaint is maintainable (Reference may be made to 2006(2) CPR 66 (NC) M/S East India Construction Company –Versus- M/S. Modern Consultancy Service). Therefore even though the complainant is using the bus for commercial purpose, the defect in the bus is within the warranty period and hence the complainant is a consumer and this case is maintainable.
5. Now coming to the merit of the case, it is an admitted fact that the bus of the complainant was broke down and the same was repaired by the mechanics of the O.P at Sambalpur and the complainant had paid Rs 33,500/- towards repairing chares. The learned advocate for the O.P submitted that, due to the negligence of the complainant and non service of the bus in time violates the warranty conditions and hence charges was demanded. Perused the warranty conditions available on record. In para -1(c ) of the said conditions the engine and transmission of the bus of the complainant is warranted for a period of 36 months from the date of sale. In para-3 of the said conditions the ETB declares that, he is under obligation to repair or replace the defective parts of the EICHER vehicle during warranty period. It is seen from the material available on record that, the mechanics of the O.P found inherent defects in the engine of the bus and hence they took the same to Sambalpur for repair. No where the mechanics have opined that, the defect in the engine is due to the negligence of the complainant. The O.P has not produced any evidence either by way of affidavit of the technical persons or otherwise to show that the defect in the engine of the bus is due to the negligence of the complainant and due to non service of the bus in time. Therefore the O.P is duty bound to repair the vehicle free of cost during warranty period and demand of service charges amounts to unfair trade practice.
6. The complainant has calculated her actual loss amounting to Rs 45,000/- i.e Rs 3,000/- per day for 15 days and calculated Rs 15,000/- towards mental tension. It is not disputed by the O.P that the bus was not lying idle for 15 days or the complainant has not sustained any loss. Hence the complainant is entitled to the same.
Hence ordered;
The O.P is directed to refund Rs 33,500/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand five hundred) along with Rs 60.000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) towards compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% P.A till payment.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is allowed.
Order pronounced in open forum this the 9th day of April 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
