APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  17^th   MAY,  2016

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.02.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/14/154, Erose Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs.  Girish Bholanath Pande, vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 17.02.2014, passed by the District Consumer  Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in  Consumer Complaint No. 525/2011, was set aside and the consumer complaint was dismissed. 

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Girish Bholanath Pande, filed the consumer complaint no. 525/2011, saying that he was owner of a Swaraj Mazda mini bus with registration no. MH-27/A 9133 and was earning his livelihood by running the said bus.  He purchased the said bus from Roopnarayan Dube, resident of Nagpur and the same was registered in his name on 18.11.2015.  The bus suffered from defect in the front wheel of the vehicle, which created sound and hence, he sent the bus for repairs to the opposite party on a number of occasions.  Despite the repairs being carried out by the opposite party and the charges paid, the defect in the bus could not be removed.  The complainant sent the bus for repairs third time on 30.06.2011, when the opposite party issued a quotation of Rs. 35,130/- for repairs.  However, on the other hand, the opposite party opened parts of the engine, saying that the repairs of the bus were going on.  In this way, the opposite party compelled the complainant to spend the amount in question.  The complainant alleged that there was no defect in the engine of the vehicle.  The complainant had, therefore, suffered mental agony due to non-repair of the bus and he was incurring a loss of Rs. 2,000/- per day on that account.  The complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 3,28,661/- as compensation from the opposite party.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant was running his business with 6 to 8 tourist buses and hence, he did not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act.  Further, the vehicle was duly repaired and returned to the complainant after taking trial by his driver and to his satisfaction.  The defect in the vehicle was due to negligent driving.  The opposite party repaired the vehicle again, when it was brought to them on 30.06.2011, but the complainant failed to make payment of the repair charges of Rs. 35,130/- and filed the present consumer complaint against them, which deserves to be dismissed.  The opposite party demanded that they should be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered due to filing of a false complaint against them.  The District Forum, vide their order dated 17.02.2014, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to handover the vehicle to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 500/- per day as compensation from the date of filing the complaint till the date of handing over the vehicle.  The District Forum also directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses.  Being aggrieved against the order, the opposite party challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed vide impugned order and the consumer complaint has been dismissed.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.      During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the vehicle was sent three times to the opposite party for repairs, but the defects in the front wheel could not be removed by them.  The order passed by the District Forum was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.

5.      I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

6.      The State Commission, vide impugned order, stated that there was no evidence to prove that the complainant was holding other vehicles also, when the vehicle in dispute was brought to it for repairs.  They accordingly held that the complainant was a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  From the material on record, there is nothing to hold a contrary view and hence, I agree with the findings of the State Commission on this issue.

7.      The State Commission have further observed that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 1996 and hence, it had become 15 years old, when it was brought to the opposite party for repairs.  During all these years, the vehicle was plied as a tourist bus.  The State Commission also observed that the complainant had taken back the vehicle from the opposite party on 07.06.2011 after making payment of Rs. 54,161/- to the opposite party and the bill issued by the opposite party showed the repair of various parts of the vehicle.  The State Commission rightly observed that there were certain major defects in the vehicle at that time, which were repaired by the opposite party.  After getting the vehicle back on 07.06.2011, the complainant brought it again to the opposite party after six days of first repairs i.e. on 13.01.2011, when the opposite party charged Rs. 500/- only for repairs.  The complainant took the vehicle again on 21.06.2011 and paid repair charges of Rs. 7,000/- to the opposite party.  Again the vehicle was taken to the opposite party for repairs on 30.06.2011.  It is clear from these facts that the vehicle in question was a 15-year-old tourist vehicle, which required repairs from time to time.  Since the vehicle has been taken back by the complainant on a number of occasions, it leads to the presumption that the repair work was done to his satisfaction, otherwise he would not have taken it back.  The State Commission also held that under Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act, where a bailee has rendered any service involving the exercise of labour, or skill in respect of the goods bailed, he has in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a right to retain such goods, until he receives due remuneration for the services he rendered.  It is also not proved anywhere by the complainant that the demand made by the opposite party for Rs. 35,130/- was not justified on any ground.  Hence, the charge of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant does not stand proved from the facts and circumstances on record.  It is also not proved whether the money charged by the opposite party amounting to Rs. 61,661/- were for the same defect for which the vehicle was taken to them for repairs on 30.06.2011.

8.      I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the orders of the State Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order.  This revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.