Haryana

StateCommission

A/397/2018

VIJAY JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.P.AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

RAJIV DHAWAN

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:28.03.2018

                Date of final hearing:17.04.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 25.04.2023

 

First Appeal No.397 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Vijay Jain son of Shri Nami Chand Jain, R/o Ward No.1, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

.….Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Through its Manager, Nirmal Motor Building, Meerut Road, Karnal-132001.

…..Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Sameer Sethi, Advocate

 

2.      Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Mahindra Towers, G.M. Bhosle Marg, Mumbai-400018.

.….Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate

 

 

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Harsh Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. Sameer Sethi, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Ms. Sapna Khurana, proxy counsel for Mr. Vaibhav Narang, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.11.2017, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (now ‘District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

 

2.               The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that on 30.01.2013, complainant purchased a Jeep Mahindra XUV-500 AWD W8 bearing registration No.HR-75A-3000 from opposite party No.1 (‘OP No.1’) for a consideration of Rs.14,20,000/- and OP No.2 was the manufacturer of said vehicle. It was alleged that said vehicle started troubling within few days from its purchase, like abnormal sound in 2^nd gear at slow speed, reverse camera stop check, underbody noise, cluster meter noisy, brake less effective, vehicle jam etc. It was further alleged that there were many manufacturing defects in the vehicle, which were repaired at the cost of Rs.24,000/- against bill dated 20.05.2015. Thereafter, again on 28.05.2015 the vehicle in question was repaired for defect in brake system at the cost of Rs.25,000/- and on 19.06.2015 its AC was repaired on heavy costs. The vehicle in question was taken 36 times for servicing and repaired from the date of purchase and complainant paid more than Rs.2,00,000/- for the same. It was further alleged that complainant requested the Ops to replace the vehicle, but they did not pay any heed. He also served a legal notice dated 25.06.2015 upon the Ops, but they did not give any reply. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.                Upon notice, Ops appeared before learned District Commission and filed their separate written version. OP No.1 in its reply submitted that except for the complaint of AC, all the complaints were redressed and the vehicle was repaired in the year, 2013 and corrected under warranty. The complaint regarding AC was made much later and the same was also redressed. It was further submitted that on 07.11.2013, the complainant brought the vehicle in question regarding jamming on turning, parts under warranty were replaced and vehicle was delivered back on 08.11.2013. No manufacturing defect was noticed in the vehicle in question. It was further submitted that complainant brought the vehicle in question on three occasions i.e. on 08.05.2015, 20.05.2015 & 28.05.2015 and on all these occasions, the problems were removed from the vehicle. It was further submitted that the vehicle had already covered 1,50,000 KMs. during three years of its purchase and such vehicle with manufacturing defect cannot be driven over such a long distance. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on part of OP No.1.

4.                OP No.2 filed separate reply, but on the similar grounds with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of complainant vide its order dated 13.11.2017 as mentioned above.

6.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri Rajiv Dhawan, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Harsh Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. Sameer Sethi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. Sapna Khurana, proxy counsel for Shri Vaibhav Narang, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                Before adverting to merits, there is an application for condonation of delay to be decided as there is a delay of 98 days in filing the present appeal. An application under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (in short “Act”) was filed seeking  for condonation of delay of 98 days. Regarding this learned counsel for appellant has argued that a copy of impugned order was delivered to the counsel of complainant on 20.11.2017 and the counsel inadvertently failed to inform the complainant about disposal of the complaint. Thereafter, in third week of March, 2018 the complainant visited the office of said counsel and then came to know about dismissal of the complaint. So, delay in filing of present appeal has occurred, which is not intentional, but due to the reasons as mentioned above and thus prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

9.                However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail. A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every day should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand, no reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 98 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

10.              Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

11.              In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay of 98 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

12.              On merits, Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned counsel for appellant has argued that appellant purchased a new vehicle i.e. Jeep Mahindra XUV-500 AWD W8 bearing registration No.HR-75A-3000 from respondent No.1 on 30.01.2013 for price consideration of Rs.14,20,000/- and respondent No.2 is manufacturer of said vehicle. He further argued that vehicle in question started troubling within a few days from its purchase, like abnormal sound in 2^nd gear at slow speed, reverse camera stop check, underbody noise, cluster meter noisy, brake less effective, vehicle jam etc. because of many manufacturing defects in it. He further argued that the vehicle in question was brought to respondents 36 times for servicing and repairs from the date of purchase and appellant paid more than Rs.2,00,000/- for the same.  He further argued that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and prayed that directions be issued to respondents to replace the vehicle in question with a new one or refund the amount of Rs.14,20,000/- alongwith interest from the date of purchase; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony etc.; to pay Rs.3,00,000/- on account of repairs of vehicle in question and to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

13.              Mr. Harsh Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. Sameer Sethi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that the vehicle in question was manufactured by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is the dealer only. He further argued that all the complaints were redressed and the vehicle was repaired and various parts were replaced under warranty and no manufacturing defect was noticed in the vehicle in question. He further argued that appellant brought the vehicle in question to respondent No.1 on three occasions i.e. on 08.05.2015, 20.05.2015 & 28.05.2015 and all the times problems were resolved and the defects were removed from the vehicle. He further argued that the vehicle had already covered 1,50,000 KMs. during three years of its purchase and such vehicle with manufacturing defect could not have covered such a long distance. He further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1 and that the learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

14.              Ms. Sapna Khurana, proxy counsel for Mr. Vaibhav Narang, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that relationship between respondent No.1 & respondent No.2 are on principal to principal basis and respondent No.2 is not aware of the ultimate customer of dealers and as such, there is no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is not responsible for any act by its dealers. She further argued that  appellant failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. She further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2 and learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of complainant and she further prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

15.              The composite reading of averments taken in the complaint as well as in the grounds of appeal, it is true that on 30.01.2013, the appellant purchased a Jeep Mahindra XUV 500 AWD W8 bearing registration No.HR-75A-3000 for a price consideration of Rs.14,20,000/- from respondent No.1 and said vehicle was manufactured by respondent No.2. According to the appellant, the said vehicle started troubling within a few days of its purchase and he visited the workshop of respondents many times, due to manufacturing defects and problems which were beyond the repairs. But, as per the respondents, reporting of problems once or twice cannot be termed as manufacturing defect and whenever complaints were made by appellant, same were resolved. Moreover, there is no expert report regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and without any expert report, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question has any manufacturing defect. Since the vehicle in question was purchased by the appellant in the year 2013 and the complaint was filed  in the year, 2015 i.e. after approximately 2 ½ years and the vehicle has also run more than 1,00,000/- Kms. in that period, it means there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.

16.              Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the finding given by the learned District Commission on merits.  Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. Therefore, the present appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and therefore, dismissed.

17.                 A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

18.                 Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

19.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 25^th April, 2023

                                                                                       

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench-III

 

R.K