Haryana

StateCommission

A/401/2016

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIMAL GANDHI - Opp.Party(s)

MANISH JAIN

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.401 of 2016

Date of Institution: 10.05.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 18.09.2017

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400039 (India), through Mr. A.Vashwanath, Vice President.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1. Vimal Gandhi S/o Guru Prasad, # House No. 5/A, NIT, Faridabad.
2. M/s Prime Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (Genuss Motors), 20/2 Mathura Road, Faridabad, through its Director/Authorised Signatory.

         …..Respondents

F.A.No.429 of 2016

Date of institution: 16.05.2016

Date of Decision: 18.09.2016

 

M/s Prime Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (Authorized Dealer of respondent No.2), 20/2 Mathura Road, Faridabad, through its Administration Manager Sh.Sonu Sharma S/o Sh.Kishan Chand Sharma.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Vimal Gandhi S/o Guru Prasad, # House No. 5/A, NIT, Faridabad.

2.      M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400039 (India), through Mr. A.Vashwanath, Vice President.

…..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Munish Jain, Advocate counsel for Mahindra and Mahindra in both cases.

                   Mr.D.P.S.Maan, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant in both the cases.

                   Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for  Prime Automobiles.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Vide this order above mentioned two appeals bearing Nos.401 of 2016 and 429 of 2016 will be disposed of, as both are directed against the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      As per complainant he purchased vehicle make XUV-500 manufactured by opposite party (O.P.) No.1- M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Limited from O.P.No.2 i.e. M/s Prime Automobiles on 13.03.2012 for Rs.12,44,999/-.  Later-on it was found that there was rust on so many parts of the vehicle such as bonnet, dickey, all doors, petrol nozzle, around the engine and roof of the vehicle etc. The vehicle was also having problem of major suspension, noise and sensor.  As they were    manufacturing defect  the vehicle was taken to O.P.No.2 on 18.09.2013 and job order was prepared on 20.09.2013 showing all the problems. He requested O.Ps. so many times to replace the vehicle, but, they offered to replace all doors, body shell, fuel LID cover, all doors Hindge, Bumper, Facia, Bonnet and Bonnet Lock Latch of the said vehicle. As there was manufacturing defect, so the O.Ps. be directed to replace the vehicle or to refund the cost and giving compensation as prayed for.

3.       O.P.No.1 was proceeded ex parte, so only  O.P.No.2 filed reply controverting averments of complainant.  It was alleged that there was no manufacturing  defect in the vehicle. They  never admitted about any manufacturing defect. O.P.No.1 never assured to replace articles as alleged by complainant.   The present complaint is an abuse of  process of law and is filed just to harass them.  Objections about territorial jurisdiction, accruing cause of action , locus standi, concealing true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District         Forum allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to refund, jointly and severally, an amount of Rs.12,44,999/- as well as Registration charges alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase and registration of the vehicle in question respectively till the realization of amount to the complainant and after receipt of said amount, the complainant shall return the vehicle in question to opposite parties. Opposite parties NO.1 and 2 are further  directed to pay, jointly and severally, Rs.50000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom both the O.Ps. have preferred the aforesaid appeals.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant vehemently argued that  from the perusal of vehicle history Ex.C-4 dated 20.09.2013 it is clear that following problems were existing in the vehicle at that time:-

“1.     Check Rusting Problem

2.      Check Pasting on other parts

3.      Check all light properly NW

4.      Check front suspension

5.      Check Front Brale Noise & Poor Bearing

6.      Chief is system N/W properly

7.      Brake Noise”

          This problem occurred within one year from the date of purchase.  There was rust on so many parts of the body as mentioned above. All these defects show that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle and learned District Forum rightly directed to refund the price.

8.      This argument is of no avail. The defects mentioned above are not sufficient to come to conclusion that there was manufacturing defect. These defects can be easily removed by way of replacement of defective parts. It is alleged by complainant in Para No.8 of the complaint that O.P.No.1 was ready to replace  all body doors, body shell, fuel LID Cover, all doors hindge, bumper, facia, bonnet and bonnet lock latch of the vehicle. Replacement of these  parts will meet ends of justice. These views are also fortified by the opinion of this Commission in first appeal No.360 of 2014 titled as Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. Parkash Singh decided on 27.08.2014 and in first appeals No.697 & 849 of 2015 titled as M/s Supreme Mobiles Limited Vs. Brij Lal decided on 21.10.2016.

9.      As a sequel to above discussion impugned order dated 08.04.2016 is set aside. O.P.No.1 will replace aforesaid parts  free of costs.  Complainant will take vehicle to workshop of O.P.No.2.  After repair of vehicle, two Engineers of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited would examine and issue a certificate to the complainant with respect to the repair made by them. The expenses incurred on the repair of the vehicle shall be borne by the manufacturer.  Fresh warranty of  these parts will start from the date of repair.

10.    With this modification in impugned order dated 08.04.2016, both the appeal stands disposed off.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited (in appeal No.401 of 2016)  and Rs.25000/- deposited (in appeal No.429 of 2016) at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

12.  The original judgement be attached with appeal No.401 of 2016 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.429 of 2016.

 

September 18th, , 2017	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench
S.K