National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ishwarlal Amarnani vs M/S Hero Puch & Ors. on 17 February, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH AT AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT RP NO. 2830 OF 2007 (Against the order dated 16.05.2007 in Appeal No.469/2007 of State Commission, Gujarat) Ishwarlal Amarnani Petitioner Versus M/s Hero Puch & Ors. ..Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr.H.P. Mojiramani, Advocate For Respondent : Ms.Nayana S.Shah, Advocate Pronounced on 17th February, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Ishwarlal Amarnani (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which has passed order in favour of M/s Hero Puch and others (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents).
Petitioner has contended that he had purchased a Hero Puch EZ two wheeler from Respondent No.1 with a warranty of two years which included three free services for the vehicle. Right from the beginning, problems cropped-up which included overflow of fuel, high consumption of petrol and trouble with the steering. The vehicle was attended to by the Respondent during the warranty period but the defects remained. Thereafter, although the carburettor and some other parts of the vehicle including the battery were changed, the problems still persisted. Petitioner, therefore, sent a legal notice to the Respondents to remove the defects and he was advised by a service engineer of the Respondent to change the authorised dealer. The Petitioner, therefore, took the vehicle to Respondent No.3 who charged him Rs.1,000/- for the cost of liners and labour charges. When the defects persisted, on 01.08.2003 the Petitioner again sent a legal notice to the Respondents which despite keeping the vehicle in their garage for three days could not rectify the defects.
Further some parts of the vehicle were removed and replaced without his knowledge which aggravated the problems in running the vehicle. Petitioner, therefore, sent yet another legal notice on 11.10.2003 to the Respondents seeking refund of the cost of the vehicle with interest @ 18%, cost and expenditure incurred on consumption of extra petrol and auto-rickshaw charges for the days when the vehicle was kept by the Respondents for repairs. The Respondents, however, refused to grant him the necessary reliefs sought and therefore, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking the reliefs stated above.
Respondents have denied the contentions of Petitioner and stated that in the first place the complaint was time barred in view of the fact that the cause of action arose with the purchase of the vehicle in 2000 and the complaint before the District Forum was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years, in 2003. Respondents further pleaded that during the course of warranty, Petitioner availed of all three services and for which he was not charged. Even after the warranty period was over, as is borne out by the job cards dated 13.03.2003, 01.07.2003, 21.07.2003, 31.07.2003 and 28.08.2003, whatever minor defects were noted the Respondents attended to these promptly and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle which had run 12381 kilometres.
The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence filed before it partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondents to remove the defects in the vehicle within 15 days from the date of order failing which the vehicle was to be replaced with a new vehicle or in alternate to refund the price of vehicle in question with running interest @ 6% from the date of complaint till realization. An amount of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
Aggrieved by this order, Respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission which remanded the case back to the District Forum on the grounds that the deficiency in service shown by the Petitioner required more proof and evidence. The District Forum after hearing the case on remand, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by limitation because it was filed beyond the prescribed period of two years and also on merits because the Petitioner had failed to prove charges against the Respondents.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced:
We have perused the impugned order. It is suggested therefrom that the appellant (complainant) purchase Hero Puch(EZ) two wheeler bearing No.GJ-I-CE-5838 on 26.10.2000 from the opponent No.2, that delivery was given on 02.11.2000 with two years warranty.
It is not disputed that three free services provided were availed by the complainant. It is suggested that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the opponent for which the opponent has produced the job cards dated 13.03.2003, 1.7.2003, 21.7.2003, 31.7.2003 and 23.8.2003. As observed in the impugned order the job cards contained the signature of the complainant for the work done by the opponents. It may also be seen that the present complaint was filed on 09.12.2003 where as the vehicle was purchased on 26.10.2000 and the delivery was given on 02.11.2000.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for both parties were present and made oral submissions.
Learned counsel for Petitioner stated that fora below erred in dismissing the case on grounds of limitation because the period for filing the complaint has to be taken not from the date of purchase of the vehicle but from the date when the Respondents failed to remove the defects in the vehicle i.e. from 01.08.2003. Counsel for Petitioner brought to our notice a ruling of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bhagirathi Krishnan Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. & Ors. I(2010) CPJ 114, which inter alia stated that if a complaint is filed within two years of the warranty period it would be within limitation. In the instant case, though the warranty period expired on 26.10.2002, since the Respondents failed to remove the defects in the vehicle even on 01.08.2003, and the complaint was filed on 09.12.2003, therefore, in terms of the above ruling, it is very much within the period of limitation.
Learned counsel for Respondents, on the other hand, stated that the District Forum and the State Commission had rightly held that the complaint was not maintainable on grounds of limitation. In the instant case, the cause of action, if any, rose on 26.10.2000 when the complainant purchased the vehicle from the Respondents.
Thereafter, three free services were availed for relatively minor matters relating to horn, brakes, battery, headlight etc. and the vehicle was in working condition. The complaint was filed on 09.12.2003 and no application whatsoever seeking condonation of delay in filing the present complaint in terms of provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed. In fact even if the case had been filed after the warranty period was over i.e. on 27.10.2002, it would still be beyond the period of limitation. Even on merits, the case is not maintainable. There was no deficiency in service because as indicated by the job cards, even after the warranty period, Respondents promptly attended to the purported complaints of the Petitioner in respect of the vehicle which in any case were minor in nature. There was no manufacturing defect and the Petitioner on whom was the onus to produce any expert opinion or proof in support of his contention of manufacturing defect has failed to do so.
We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and have perused the evidence on record.
It is not in dispute that the vehicle was bought in 2000 and the complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2003.
All the job cards produced pertain to the period after the warranty period was over. The contention of the Petitioner that the period of limitation will start when the Respondent failed to rectify the defects is not tenable.
Section 24-A of the Act is a legislative mandate to the consumer fora not to admit a complaint unless it has been filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen except when the complainant satisfies the forum that there was sufficient cause for not filing complaint within time. In the instant case no such application for condonation of delay has been filed. Section 24-A further states that the consumer fora will be committing an illegality if they entertain a complaint beyond the period two years.
Keeping in view these facts, we agree with the fora below that the case was barred by limitation and uphold the order of the State Commission.
The revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
..
(ASHOK BHAN J) PRESIDENT Sd/-
.
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/