Per P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member :
This appeal is filed by the original complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, Satara by judgement dated 30.3.2005 delivered in consumer complaint No. 25/04.
The facts of this case are as under :
The complainant/appellant is respondent of Chiplun, District Ratnagiri. It appears that she had filed earlier complaint in District Forum, Ratnagiri but said complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and revision was carried and in revision, this Commission confirmed the said order and directed the complainant to file consumer complaint in Satara. Accordingly, complaint is ultimately decided by District Forum, Satara.
The grievance of the complainant was that she bought Mahindra Voyager vehicle manufactured by opponent No. 1 to 3. Opponent, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. agreed to provide finance of `4,02,2000/-. Complainant deposited the amount of `1,60,000/- and opponent No.4 provided finance of `4,02,2000/- and accordingly vehicle was purchased from opponent No.5, Phaltan Industries Pvt.Ltd; the dealer of Karad District Satara. The loan amount was repayable in 36 EMIs each of `14,333/-. The complainant had purchased policy when ‘Festival Offer’ was in force by manufacturer and dealer. So she was having extra warranty of one year besides usual warranty was given by the manufacturer. According to the complainant, she paid 17 instalments upto September 2000 from 31.12.99 when she had purchased the vehicle. But according to the complainant, the said vehicle developed manufacturing defects and due to defects, vehicle break down. However, now and then since spare parts were not available at Chiplun. Spare parts were required to be brought from Panvel or Pune. According to the complainant, it was not brand new car but second hand vehicle. The colour painted to the vehicle was not proper. Therefore, in a few days the metal sheet/body panel of the vehicle became rusty, the colour became faint, holes developed in the body of the vehicle. She had also mentioned in her complaint various defects found in the vehicle despite repairs carried out in Mumbai and Pune. Her contention was vehicle in question could not be used by her because of manufacturing defects. So she requested opponents to take possession of the vehicle and give her back her amount. Opponent No.4 informed the complainant that she did not pay instalments as per EMIs agreed and therefore, they would repossess the vehicle. Complainant in fact, sent legal notice on 23.9.2000 asking them to take back vehicle and refund her cost of the vehicle. Opponent No.2 only gave reply to the complainant that they were collecting information. Opponent No.4 informed on telephone to bring said vehicle to Pune. According to him, said vehicle was handed over to the opponent No.4 on 8.1.2001. The said vehicle was sent to the garage Silver Jubilee Motors Ltd., Pune. For four months, the said vehicle was in the garage. The complainant thereafter, took back vehicle on 26.4.2001 by paying `4,164/-. Complainant again informed opponent No.4 to take possession of the vehicle and complete the calculation and settle the accounts and to give her back cost of the vehicle According to the complainant, even repair work done at Pune garage was not satisfactory. There were many defects which were not repaired properly. Complainant requested opponents to take back possession of the vehicle but opponent No.4 forcibly took possession of the vehicle on 13th August 2001 for non-payment of instalments and took the same to Pune. Opponent No.5 instead of refunding the amount asked payment of arrears and fines. According to the complainant, vehicle supplied to her was of sub-standard quality and vehicle was sold by opponent No.4 to some other person. She alleges that opponents are guilty of supplying defective vehicle and it was illegally seized by opponents. The amount of price was not given back to the complainant as per her demand. Hence she filed consumer complaint praying that opponent No. 1 to 5 be directed to provide new ‘Mahindra Voyager’ to the complainant or alternatively to refund `4,02,2000/- to the complainant. She also claimed `50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony.
Opponents filed written statement and contested the matter. Considering defence raised, the Forum below was pleased to hold that complainant failed to prove that vehicle supplied to her was defective in any manner. She had not adduced any expert evidence and that she had committed default in repayment of EMIs and therefore, vehicle was rightly seized by opponent No.4, Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. The Forum below also noted in its order that from time to time opponent No. 1 to 5 had given proper service to the complainant and they found no deficiency in service from the opponent No. 1 to 5. As such the Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint finding no substance in the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, complainant filed this appeal.
We heard Advocate Ms. Chhaya Deo for appellant. None appears for respondent. Appellant also files written arguments, taken on record. We are finding that the Ld District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no manufacturing defect of any kind. The vehicle had run for distance of 93574. It would necessarily mean that the vehicle was in good order and there was no manufacturing defect. Job Cards produced before the District Forum in terms of Exh.31-1 to 31-5 clearly prove that opponent No. 1 to 3 and 5 had given good services and whatever complaints were made by the complainant, they were attended to and car was repaired. The Forum below also rightly held that no evidence was produced by the complainant/appellant to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant was prompted to file this complaint because opponent No. 4 who is Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. had taken possession of the vehicle on 13th August 2001 for non-payment of instalments and it was then sold by opponent No.4 after issuing notice about their intention to sell the vehicle in case complainant/appellant failed to clear the dues.
Admittedly, complainant has taken car loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. and its instalments were not repaid and therefore, vehicle was rightly taken possession of by Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. and complainant found that it has been sold out by the Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. She filed consumer complaint alleging that the car was having manufacturing defect. Without proving the fact of car having manufacturing defect, the Forum held that the complaint was devoid of any substance. We confirm the said finding and hold that the Forum below had rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no substance in the appeal preferred by the original complainant. Hence the following order :
O R D E R
Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced dated 3rd February 2012.
aab
