Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
We heard Mr.Pushakar Patankar, Advocate for the appellant/Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. in A-964/2011, Mr.N.S. Parte, Advocate for the appellant/Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. in A-974/2011 and respondent No.1/org. complainant-Mr.Pravin Mahale present in person.
2. Both appeals are admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith with consent of both the parties.
3. Both these appeals are filed against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.121/2011 filed by respondent No.1/org. complainant. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has passed order against both the opponents. Opponent No.1 was Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd./dealer and opponent No.2 was Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd./manufacturer of the vehicle and directed both the opponents to give new car C-category, white colour of New Skoda Fabia Classic and give new RTO number for said car and they should also ensure that the vehicle is registered with the RTO. Against this order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. had filed Appeal No.964/2011 and Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. had filed Appeal No.974/2011. In both these appeals there is delay of 10 days and by allowing the applications, delay has been condoned subject to payment of costs. Cost has been paid in our presence by both the appellants to respondent No.1. Thereafter, immediately we heard both the Advocates and respondent No.1 in person.
4. We are finding that respondent No.1 had filed consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik after he found that the car he purchased of Skoda make from appellant/Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by another appellant/Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. was not giving the average assured by the dealer and manufacturer of the vehicle. According to respondent No.1 both of them had assured him that the vehicle would give average of 15.6 Km. but according to respondent No.1 the car which was sold to him was giving average of just 6-7 Km. per Ltr. and therefore, he had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum while allowing the complaint relied upon Mr.Chetan Gupte’s statement made before it and passed the impugned order. What is pertinent to note is the fact that Mr.Gupte was not an Authorised person of Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. He was simply working as Auto Engineer in appellant/Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. He had no authority to make statement or to inspect the vehicle on behalf of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. or even for that matter on behalf of Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. though he was attached to the Showroom owned by Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. The question is when the complaint was pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the complainant had made an application dated 16/08/2011 (page-91 of appeal compilation) and wanted that Court Commissioner be appointed to look into the problems he was facing in respect of fuel consumption. The opponents had suggested that vehicle should be got examined by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Govt. of India Undertaking who is expert in the field of automobile vehicle and both the opponents who are appellants herein suggested the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that vehicle should be got examined through ARAI by sending the vehicle to ARAI, Pune. When all the parties agreed that vehicle should be got examined by ARAI, instead of sending the vehicle to said Institute, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum relied upon the statement of Mr.Gupte attached to Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. and passed the award directing both the appellants to replace the car and to give brand new car to the complainant/respondent No.1 herein. The course adopted by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in passing the award simply because the vehicle sold to the complainant was not giving assured average was improper and unjust and today in the course of hearing of these appeals, respondent No.1 categorically volunteered to get the vehicle inspected from the ARAI as per the pursis filed by both the appellants before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 29/08/2011. In the circumstances, to give fair opportunity to all the parties concerned, the vehicle which is lying in the possession of Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. will have to be taken to ARAI by the complainant after taking delivery from the appellant/Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No.974/2011. For this purpose, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum will have to be quashed and set aside and the complaint No.121/2011 will have to be remanded back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. In the circumstances, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Both appeals Nos.964/2011 & 974/2011 are allowed. The impugned order dated 20/10/2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in complaint No.121/2011 is quashed and set aside.
2. Consumer complaint No.121/2011 is remitted back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall then ask the complainant to take possession of the vehicle from Heak Auto Pvt. Ltd and he should be asked to get examined the vehicle from ARAI, Pune. Necessary assistance in this behalf be given to the complainant in procuring the expert report from the said Institute.
3. All the parties are directed to appear in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 27/04/2012.
4. All parties are left to bear their own costs.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 21st March 2012.
