Orissa

Debagarh

CC/39/2019

Rohit Kumar Sahu, aged about 42 years, S/O- Late Mangulu Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Krishna Automotive - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT,DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,

DEOGARH

C.C NO-39/2019

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Rohit Kumar Sahu, aged about  42 years,

S/O- Late Mangulu Sahu,

At-Purunagarh,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                …         Complainant.

                                                                            Vrs.

1. The Proprietor,

          Krishna Automotive,

          Plot No-BL-8, Revenue PlotNo-492(P),

          Kalunga Industrial Estate,Beldhi,

          Rourkela, Dist-Sundargarh.

2. The Manufacturer,

          Mahindra and Mahindra Vehicles

          Plot No: A-1, Midc,

          Phase Iv Chakan Industrial Area Village Nighoje
          Taluka Khed,Pune – 410501,

          Maharashtra, India.                                                                         …..            O.Ps

 

For the Complainant:-Nemo

For the O.P-1:-None

For the O.P-2:-None

 

DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2019, DATE OF ORDER : 10.12.2019

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President- Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant on dt. 24.11.2016 has purchased a New Bolero Power+ ZLX of MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA make having Engine No- WJG6K44254 and Chassis No-MA1XK2WJXG5L31598 from O.P-1 on payment of Rs.8,03,586/-. The said Bolero was warranted for 3 years or running of 1,00,000 kilometers whichever is earlier. On dtd. 08.06.2018, while travelling, his driver noticed that hot water along with coolant was suddenly thrown out from the engine and the Bolero became stopped there. At that time the Bolero has covered a distance of  51,177 Kms only. He informed the matter to the O.P-1 and brought the Bolero to his showroom for proper repairing.  It took approximately one month to repair and remove all the defects by replacing some spares and the Complainant paid Rs 29,000/-. Again on dtd. 01.01.2019, the Complainant found the same problem as the engine stopped working automatically and the Bolero did not move. He took the Bolero to the service station of the O.P-1 and left the Bolero there for 10-12 days for through inspection and defect removal. But again on dtd. 06.08.2019, the same problems of throwing of hot water with coolant observed on road for which the Complainant towed the Bolero to the showroom of the O.P-1 and became aggrieved on this matter. On delivery he paid the O.P-1, Rs. 12,606/- on dtd.14.08.2019 from his own pocket in spite of the Bolero is within the warranty period and it detained there for 15 days in the workshop.  The O.P-1 told that it is manufacturing problem so the defect cannot be completely removed. Earlier the O.P-1 made a Sealed Policy against the Bolero which covers all the engine related problems and provide a tension free drive to the Complainant. In this situation the Complainant became aggrieved over the matter as he has already spent a huge amount of money to remove the same defects time to time since year 2016 in the service station of O.P-1, hence he decided not to keep the defective Bolero for his use and claimed that the O.Ps shall provide him a new defect free Bolero in its place because he (Complainant) has no more reliance/ trust on it. Again he submitted that he has visited the showroom of O.P-1 from Deogarh to Rourkela several times, which is expensive and wastage of time. Till today the defects are not removed and the said Bolero is lying in idle condition in the residence of the Complainant which hampers his livelihood as it is the only source of income out of which he feeds his family and he suffers irrecoverable loss . Hence he claims that the service of O.Ps is not proper and they committed “Deficiency in Service” and “Unfair Trade Practice” according to Consumer Protection Act-1986.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the Complainant is comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum?
3. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps as he has purchased a Mahindra Bolero Power+ ZLX and availed services time to time from the O.Ps. Again it can be seen that since the year 2018 the said Bolero is giving problems and the O.P-1 removes the defects and delivers the vehicles to the Complainant after receiving service charges time to time. It would clearly indicate that there was manufacturing defect in the Bolero. One could not be oblivious to the submission that these defects were noticed within a very short time span of 15-17 months from the date of purchase forcing the dealer/ manufacturer to replace them. Even if we ignore the changing of some spares like-gasket, coolant, Clutch Kit, Bearings, valves, some oil pipes, wiring by the dealer and consider undisputed jobs done. A Bolero is supposed to give reasonable service for a number of years exceeding 5 to 7 years without forcing a purchaser to visit workshop of the respondents to complain about the aforesaid defects again and again. For this reason the Complainant has faded up and has no reliance on the said vehicle. Lastly when the vehicle was in the garage of O.P-1, the Complainant on dtd. 14.08.2019 has got the vehicle repaired on payment basis. Though the O.P-1 had repaired the said Bolero but he did not succeed to remove the inherent defects and the same is continuing till date. Again it is doubtful that whether the repair is being carried out by the technical experts of the O.P-1 or not as there is no such documents have been submitted regarding their expertise. Again the said Bolero is within the “Shield Warranty” term which defines as “Shield is an optional extended warranty scheme which one can buy online that covers unforeseen mechanical and electrical breakdown. This program is specially designed to give the customers Extended benefits, Extended satisfaction and a higher resale value for the vehicles”. But the O.Ps has charged the Complainant every time against the service rendered within the warranty period. Here the malafide intensions of the O.Ps can be clearly observed. On a sale of a motor vehicle by a manufacturer to dealer there may be an implied warranty that it is reasonably fit for, or adapted to, the uses for which it is made and sold; and such a warranty is not excluded by the silence of the contract of sale as to warranties." Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for. This matter has been properly established in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr on 29 March, 2006  decided by Supreme Court of India.  There is no doubt that the Complainant has had to suffer mental agony in taking delivery of a defective Bolero after having paid for a brand new Bolero and in taking the Bolero  again and again to the dealer for repairs. For this mental agony and torture.  Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Services” U/S- 2(1)(g) and “Unfair Trade Practice”  u/s-2(1)(r) according to the  Consumer Protection Act-1986 and we order as under :-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 is directed that on taking the said Bolero in question to the authorized service centre of the O.P-1 within one month, the defective part that is the Engine Assembly shall be replaced. The Complainant shall not be required to pay any charge for the replacement.  Further the O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to refund all the amount received from the Complainant towards replacement of different parts excluding consumables, during warranty period and pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty  Thousand) as compensation, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above direction are to be complied within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 10^th day of October-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

   I agree,                                              I agree,         

 

MEMBER.(W)                                  MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                       by me.     

 

                                                                  PRESIDENT