State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Mahendra Kumar Bajare vs Hem Motor Division Pvt Ltd & Anr on 10 April, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/09/1156
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 13/05/2009 in Case No. 06/2009 of District Satara)
1. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR BAJARE
MAHUD BUDRUK TAL SANGOLA DIST SOLAPUR
Maharastra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. HEM MOTOR DIVISION PVT LTD
SHRI BIPIN KANTILAL SHAH
A-4/2, OLD
MIDC PUNE BANGOLORE HIGHWAY SATARA
DIST SATARA
Maharastra
2. TATA MOTORS
WESTERN REGION OFFICER, R. SUGALILAR, 1ST FLOOR,
CITY MALL,
NEAR TO PUNE
UNIVERSITY, GANESHKHIND ROAD,
PUNE - 411 007.
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
APPELLANT IN PERSON
ADV. ASHUTOSH MARATHE FOR THE RESPONDENTS
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara by judgement/order dated 13/05/2009 delivered in consumer complaint no.6/2009. Case of the complainant was that he had purchased Tata Indica DLG Dicor vehicle from opponent no.1- M/s.Hem Motor Division Pvt.Ltd. He deposited `1,40,000/-
with opponent no.1 on 18/05/2008. He then procured vehicle loan from Pandharpur Merchant Co-op.Bank and paid by demand draft an amount of `2,90,000/-. Thereafter, he took possession of the vehicle. At the time of taking possession, he was given insurance cover and receipts of the amounts deposited for registration of the vehicle by the dealer but he was not given manual.
He was given manual at Akluj while passing the vehicle. In the manual, he found that initially name was of Mr.Basappa Baburao Kore, but it was wiped out by applying whitener and name of the complainant was mentioned. The grievance of the complainant was that the dealer had not told him that said vehicle was earlier sold to Mr.Basappa Baburao Kore. Complainant found that vehicle was having manufacturing defect. There were various defects in the Bonet, in the opening of door of the vehicle.
There was also defect in the accelerator grip but he was told at the time of servicing by opponent no.1 that it would go away after servicing. However, according to complainant, vehicle was giving lot of trouble and every now and then he had to take vehicle to opponent no.1 for servicing and since he found that despite servicing there were some defects, he sent registered notice through his advocate on 01/10/2008 and called upon the opponents either to remove defects or to give brand new car. On their failure, he filed consumer complaint claiming an amount of `2,00,000/- as damages and also claiming new vehicle in place of vehicle given to him. He also claimed `10,000/- towards the costs of the litigation and `25,000/- towards mental harassment.
Opponent no.2-M/s.Tata Motors filed written version and pleaded that at the time of sale of the vehicle there was no defect in the Tata Indica DLG Dicor purchased by the complainant. After purchasing the vehicle, he had used the vehicle upto January 2009 recklessly and by January 2009, he covered distance of 19718 k.ms. He recklessly drove the vehicle and there were some complaints regarding spare parts.
Opponent no.1 who is authorized dealer had removed those defects. Opponent no.2 M/s.Tata Motors therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
Opponent no.1 filed written version and pleaded that said vehicle was used commercially by brother of the complainant.
He denied the allegations of the complainant that said vehicle was earlier sold to Mr. Basappa Baburao Kore.
He also denied the allegations of the complainant that said vehicle was having defect. He pleaded that initially complainant had brought the vehicle for two free servicing and at that time he was told that there was no defect of any nature in the vehicle. Even vehicle met with an accident and after accident he had repaired the said vehicle and removed the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. Even after filing of the complaint, the vehicle was brought for servicing to him and he had done servicing to the vehicle of the complainant and after servicing it was handed over to the complainant and, therefore, he pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on his part and complaint should be dismissed.
Main grievance of the complainant appears to be that this vehicle was sold earlier to Mr.Bassappa Baburao Kore.
Mr.Bassappa Baburao Kore had also filed affidavit before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that he had purchased Indica 1.4 DLG Turbo A/ Silver having Chassis No.605121BPZP28145 Engine no.475IDT15BRZP23704 on 29/02/2008.
His affidavit is at page no.116 of the appeal paper book. He on affidavit stated that he had purchased the vehicle on 29/02/2008 from M/s.Hem Motor Division Pvt.Ltd. It was Indica DLG Dicor having Engine No.1.4 Dicor 07 MSZW 09928 & Chassis No.60042/ARZPO4578 and he immediately returned the said vehicle as there was manufacturing defect. He then approached opponent no.1 and on 10/03/2008 he purchased Tata Indica DLG Turbo model. While giving back the vehicle he had also given back the vehicle manual to M/s.Hem Motor Division Pvt.Ltd. since earlier he had purchased vehicle of Tata Indica DLG Dicor. However, what is pertinent to note is the fact that Mr.Bassappa Kore had purchased the vehicle Tata Indica 1.4 DLG Turbo A/Silver on 29/02/2008 having Chassis No.605121BRZP28145 Engine no.475IDT15BRZP23704. Mr.Abijeet Prakash Pisal, C.E.O. of M/s.Hem Motor Division Pvt.Ltd. filed an affidavit and stated on oath that Mr.Kore had not purchased the vehicle Tata Indica DLG Dicor from them. He had purchased Indica 1.4 DLG Turbo by Delivery Challan no.1407. In the said challan it has been mentioned that Mr.Bassappa Kore had purchased Indica 1.4 DLG Turbo A/ Silver having Chassis No.605121BPZP28145 Engine no.475IDT15BRZP23704. R.T.O. has also mentioned in the certificate issued in favour of Kores vehicle that it was having Chassis no.605121BRZP28145 Engine no.475IDT15BRZP23704. Thus, forum was of the view that Mr.Kore had not purchased Tata Indica DLG Dicor from M/s.Hem Motor Division Pvt.Ltd. and only manual was initially given to him and since manual was returned, the same manual was given to the appellant Mr.Mahendrakumar Bajare. Forum was also of the view that the vehicle sold to Mr.Bassappa Kore on 10/03/2008 was Indica 1.4 DLG Turbo A/ Silver having Chassis No.605121BPZP28145 Engine no.475IDT15BRZP23704, whereas engine number and chassis number of the complainants vehicle was different and, therefore, vehicle purchased by the complainant/appellant was different than sold to Mr.Bassappa Kore. As such, forum was pleased to hold that there was no substance in the complaint, there was no manufacturing defect proved by the complainant in the vehicle supplied by opponent nos.1&2. Various job cards clearly showed that the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant every time it was taken to respondent no.1 for servicing or for repairs. Forum also noted in its order that there was accident to the vehicle on 25/09/2008 and this was concealed by the complainant and he had come with the false case that it was having manufacturing defect.
Thus, forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved by the dismissal, original complainant has filed this appeal.
We heard submissions of appellant in person and Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate for the respondents.
In the course of hearing of appeal, Advocate Ashutosh Marathe produced some documents. It was job card issued by M/s.Hem Motor Division Pvt.Ltd. that vehicle was involved in the accident and after rectification or repairs, vehicle was returned to the complainant and estimated delivery bill was for `2,809/-. Then the Deputy RTO, Akluj has also given registration particulars in respect of Tata Indica 1.4 DLG Turbo Arctic Silver. It was manufactured in the year 2008 by M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. It was having Engine no. 1.4 DICOR07MSZW09928 and Chassis No.600421ARZPO4578 and it was owned by Mr.Mahendra Vijaykumar Bajare. Mr.Bassappa Kore had also purchased Indica DLG BSIII. It was having Chassis No.605121BPZP28145 and Engine no.475IDT15BRZP23704. It would go to show that the car purchased by the complainant was not at all previously sold to Mr.Basappa Kore and on the false impression only on the basis of Vehicle Users Manual, the complainant filed consumer complaint falsely though it was not having manufacturing defect. From the various job cards produced on record, we are satisfied that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent nos.1&2 and it was giving good amount of service to the complainant. On 07/12/2008 it had covered distance of 14472 which would clearly go to show that the vehicle was in order. In the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing complaint is just and proper and there is no scope for us to exercise appellate jurisdiction by taking a different view of the matter than taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We are finding that appeal is devoid of any substance and, therefore, we are inclined to pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 10th April, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.