State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamal Yadav vs Manager, Ralas Motors & Anr. on 25 October, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.FA/12/461
Instituted on 28.08.12
Kamal Yadav, S/o: Shri Paras Yadav,
R/o: Village - Gathula,
Tah. & Dist. RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1.Manager, Ralas Motors, Anupam Nagar, Ward No.19 - B / H, Om General Stores, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.)
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Vehicle Menufacturer Ltd., Raipur, Add.: Mangalam Motors, Tatibandha, RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri Narendra Mishra, for respondent no.1. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, for respondent no.2.
ORAL ORDER Dated:25/10/2012 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT The complaint of the appellant herein, complaint case No.105/2011, has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) vide order dated 30.07.2012, holding that the questioned vehicle was never brought for repairing in the service station of respondents and there were no manufacturing defects and thus allegation of deficiency in service against respondents has not been found proved.
// 2 //
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a vehicle from respondent no.1 on 02.06.2010. It is alleged that it was having some manufacturing defects and on account of which, it suffered road accident on 02.08.2010. Intimation was immediately given to the service station of respondent no.1. Mechanics of respondent no.1 attended the vehicle and informed that some parts were required to be called from higher Service Station of the company from Raipur and thereafter the vehicle will be repaired, but ultimately those parts were not called and repairing was not done for quite some time. This action of respondent no.1 has been alleged as deficiency in service and a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, in which during pendency of the complaint, manufacturer respondent no.2 has also been impleaded as party.
3. The defence of respondent no.1 before the District Forum was that as per terms of the warrantee certificate, in the event of accident, warrantee comes to an end, and as the vehicle suffered a road accident, so terms of the warrantee were not applicable. It has also been averred that the vehicle was never brought to the Service Station of respondent no.1 and so no question of committing any deficiency in service arises. Same defences have been taken by respondent no.2 also.
// 3 //
4. Learned District Forum agreed with the defences taken by the respondents and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. I have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused record of the District Forum.
6. From the record of the District Forum, it appears that certificate Document No.5 was given by respondent no.1 to the complainant, wherein it has been stated that the vehicle suffered road accident on 02.08.2010 and thereafter Ralas Motors, Rajnandgaon sent a request for calling some parts to Ralas Motors Raipur on 08.08.2010, but thereafter till 08.10.2011, the desired parts could not be received from Raipur Service Station, as are not available there, therefore, for the purpose of information to the customer, the certificate was issued.
7. This document appears to be an important document, which contains some details of the fact regarding which there was dispute between the parties. Respondent no.1 disputed that no intimation was ever given to it by the complainant and that the vehicle was never brought to it, whereas this certificate shows that information was given and then request was sent by Ralas Motors Rajnandgaon to Raipur Service Station for calling some parts. Such request can only be sent when some mechanic inspected the vehicle and found that some parts // 4 // are desired for repairing of the vehicle. Apart from it, affidavit of the complainant appears to be incomplete. It merely verifies the contents of the complaint in general and the facts of the complaint have not been stated on oath in this affidavit, it has also not been stated anywhere, in this affidavit or in the complaint that the vehicle was later on got repaired from some other service station, whereas it appears to be an admitted fact between the parties. So description regarding the other Service Station and in what circumstances, the vehicle got repaired from that Service Station are to be given. Apart from it if mechanics of that Service Station found some defects in the vehicle, then out of those defects which defects were manufacturing, are the questions, which are also relevant for the purpose of deciding the complaint and are to be answered by the complainant. Counsel for the complainant seeks time for producing material in this regard before the District Forum.
8. As the District Forum has overlooked the material document, Document no.5 of complainant, therefore, the matter needs a fresh probe by the District Forum and when the matter is being sent for reconsideration before the District Forum, then it appears appropriate to provide opportunity to both parties for producing further evidence.
// 5 //
9. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to take in to consideration the Document No.5, available at page no.36 of the record of the District Forum, and to provide opportunity for producing documents to both parties. It is further directed to permit, if necessary, to amend the complaint and the written version if so prayed and thereafter, to decide the matter afresh on merits. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 19.11.2012. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) President /10/2012