PER MR.D.R.SHIRSAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gondia, in consumer complaint No.54/2014 on 27/05/2015 directing opponent Nos.1 and 2 to replace the vehicle of complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Opponent No.1 had preferred this appeal. Brief facts giving rise to present appeal are as under.
2) The respondent/complainant filed complaint for replacement of his vehicle or for getting refund of amount of vehicle alongwith interest on that amount alongwith cost and compensation. Complainant purchased vehicle Tata Venture Car from opponent No.3 on 08/07/2011 bearing registration No.MH-35-P-2178. However after purchase of this vehicle, just after two months the engine of the vehicle was abruptly over heated and stopped functioning. Complainant was required to take vehicle to Nagpur from Arjuni Morgaon by toeing the same. Opponent No.3 had carried out repairs of the vehicle and handed over the possession of the same to the complainant. However just after three days vehicle of the complainant stopped working because of the same problem. Again complainant had taken his vehicle to opponent No.3 and opponent No.3 has made repairs of the vehicle and handed over possession of the vehicle to complainant. However the problem present in the vehicle was persisting. In the year 2012 on several occasions complainant was required to take his vehicle to the service station of opponent No.3 for the similar type of problems. On 12/03/2013, complainant handed over vehicle to opponent No.3 for several defects present in the vehicle. Opponent No.3 had returned the vehicle to the complainant on 03/04/2013 after obtaining under taking from complainant that all the defects of the vehicle are removed. At that time opponent No.3 assured that no such problem will occur in future. Irrespective of that on 03/07/2013 again complainant was required to take his vehicle to service station of opponent No.3 for similar defects. Hence it is the contention of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the vehicle is lying in the custody of opponent No.3 from 03/07/2013 as the same could not be cured. Hence it is the contention of the complainant that by selling defective vehicle to complainant, opponents have given deficient service to complainant and played unfair trade practice. Hence complainant has filed this complaint for replacement of vehicle by opponents or to refund the amount of vehicle of Rs.4,67,383/- alongwith interest on that amount @ 12% p.a. alongwith cost and compensation.
3) Opponent Nos.1 and 2 contested complaint by filing their written version on record. They submitted that they are the manufacturers of the vehicle. Every vehicle is checked properly for its quality and thereafter brought on road. The vehicle is inspected through Automotive Research Association of India. The vehicles are given to the dealers on principle to principle basis for sale of the cars. Hence inrespect of defects present in the car, they are not responsible. Moreover they submitted that as and when complainant had brought his vehicle to the service station of opponent No.3, the opponent No.3 had given best of his services to the complainant and got his vehicle repaired to the satisfaction of complainant and handed over possession of the vehicle to him. They admitted that lastly complainant had brought vehicle to the service station of opponent No.3 on 03/07/2013. Opponent No.3 had repaired the same and had asked the complainant to take delivery of the same. Irrespective of that, the complainant has not taken deliver of his vehicle and the same is lying with the opponent No.3. Hence it is their contention that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and hence complainant is not entitled to get replacement of vehicle or refund of amount alongwith cost and compensation. Hence they prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4) Opponent No.3 also contested complaint by filing their written version on record and submitted that complainant has suppressed much of the facts inrespect of the vehicle from the Forum. They submitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 21/07/2012 and 22/102012. Irrespective of that as and when complainant had brought his vehicle to their workshop, they had given their best services to complainant and repaired the vehicle of complainant to his satisfaction. Every time complainant had taken the delivery of the vehicle after satisfying about service given to him. However, lastly when he had brought his vehicle on 03/07/2013 all though they had repaired the vehicle of complainant, complainant refused to take delivery of the vehicle and hence the same is lying with the opponent No.3. Hence it is their contention that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle of the complainant and hence they are not liable to replace the vehicle of complainant or to return back the amount of vehicle to complainant alongwith cost and compensation.
5) Considering the rival contentions of the parties, evidence adduced by them on record and documents filed on record, the learned District Consumer Forum has come to conclusion that the complainant was required to bring his vehicle to service station of opponent Nos.1 and 2 for repairs for the same problem. The learned District Consumer Forum also considered that the problem in the vehicle was present since after two months of purchase of vehicle by complainant. The learned District Consumer Forum further considered that all though there is no certificate or documentary evidence on record about manufacturing defects present in the vehicle, the same can be ascertained from the facts of the case. Hence the learned District Consumer Forum directed opponent Nos.1 and 2 to replace the vehicle of complainant by giving new vehicle of similar type to complainant. The learned District Consumer Forum further directed opponent Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant for mental pain and agony and cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to him. Being aggrieved by the same, opponent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.
6) The learned advocate appearing for appellant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that opponent Nos.1 and 2 are the manufacturers of the vehicle. Complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In that respect complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record. The defects present in the vehicle of the complainant were not manufacturing defects and the same were cured by their dealer/opponent No.3 as and when complainant brought his vehicle to their work shop. It is her submission that every time the repairing of the vehicle of complainant was done to his satisfaction and hence he had taken delivery of the vehicle. She further submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was running and it had runs more than 16,000 k.m. Hence it cannot be accepted that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle of complainant. Hence she submitted that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum to replace the vehicle of complainant is not legal and correct and hence the same be set aside by allowing this appeal.
7) The learned advocate appearing for respondent/complainant submitted that the problem in the engine of the vehicle was since two months of the purchase of vehicle and it continued for years together till complainant had lastly deposited his vehicle with opponent No.3 on 03/05/2013. The defect present in the vehicle could not be cured by opponent No.3. He further submitted that the repair of the vehicle itself goes to show that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. Complainant is not required to prove the same by producing any document in that respect on record. The learned District Consumer Forum has rightly considered the same and directed the opponent to replace the vehicle of complainant by further directing to give compensation to complainant. Hence he submitted that the appeal be dismissed and order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum be confirmed.
8) However the learned advocate appearing for respondent/ complainant further submitted that because of manufacturing defects present in this vehicle the company has stopped manufacturing of this vehicle.
9) On perusal of record it has became clear that complainant has purchased Tata Venture Car from opponent No.3 manufactured by opponent Nos.1 and 2 on 08/06/2011. The registration number of the vehicle is MH/35/P/2178. After purchase of this car, after about two months on 19/09/2011 the engine of the vehicle was over heated and stopped functioning and hence complainant was required to take vehicle by toeing the same from Arjuni Morgaon to Nagpur.
10) At that time opponent No.3 who is the authorized dealer of opponent Nos.1 and 2 repaired the vehicle of complainant. It had again same type of problem after lapse of three days. Again complainant was required to take vehicle to the work shop of opponent No.3 by toeing the same. On perusal of documents produced on record it appears that the complainant was required to take his vehicle for the same problem repeatedly to the workshop of opponent No.3. Lastly complainant had brought his vehicle to opponent No.3 on 03/07/2013 and since then it is lying with opponent No.3. The ample evidence on record shows that defects present in the vehicle could not cured totally all though complainant had taken his vehicle in the work shop of opponent No.3 for several times. Hence ultimately complainant refused to take the delivery of his vehicle from opponent No.3 on 03/07/2013. In this case it is admitted fact that the complainant has not sent his vehicle to any expert witness and has not collected any evidence from expert witness about the manufacturing defects present in the car. However fact remains on record that because of defects present in the car, the complaint could not use it properly. Complainant was required to take his vehicle from several times to the work shop of opponent No.3, still it could not be repaired properly.
11) In this case it is particular to note that it is the contention of learned advocate appearing for complainant/respondent that due to defects present in the car, company has stopped manufacturing this vehicle. In view of this fact, we are of opinion that although appellant/opponent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to replace the vehicle of complainant by new vehicle, the opponent Nos. and 2 will not be in a position to comply this order as company has stopped manufacturing of this vehicle. Moreover, as there is no evidence of expert witness on record about manufacturer defects present in the vehicle, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the vehicle. However as complainant was required to take this vehicle for repairs to opponent No.3 repeatedly, he was not satisfied with the performance of the vehicle. Hence complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount paid for purchase of this vehicle. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum in respect of replacement of vehicle of complainant is required to be modified. It will be just and proper if the opponents/appellants are directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant for purchase of this vehicle alongwith interest on that amount. In this case the complainant has filed invoice of purchase of vehicle on record showing that he had purchased this vehicle for amount of Rs.4,67,383/- on 08/07/2011. Hence we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get this amount from opponent Nos.1 and 2 alongwith interest on this amount. Hence we proceed to pass the following order.
// ORDER //
- The appeal is hereby partly allowed.
- The order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint No.54/2014 on 27/05/2015 is hereby modified and opponent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,67,383/- to complainant alongwith interest on this amount @ 6%p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 08/07/2011 till realization of amount by complainant.
- The order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum directing appellant Nos.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant is hereby set aside as complainant has granted interest on refund of amount from the date of purchase of vehicle.
- Rest of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum directing opponent Nos.1 and 2 to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to complainant in respect of cost of litigation is hereby confirmed.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
