National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kumari Namrata Singh vs Manager, Indus - A Division Of ... on 6 August, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2670 OF 2010 (From the order dated 21.04.2010 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in First Appeal No. 373 of 2009) Kumari Namrata Singh Daughter of Shri O. P. Singh Chakradhar Nagar, Banglapara Petitioner Raigadh, Chhattisgarh versus 1. Manager Indus A Division of Electrotherm 72, Palodia, Ahmedabad Gujarat 2. Saurabh Agrawal Respondents Authorised Dealer Satya Yo Bikes, Dayaram Complex Sittigudi Chowk, Raigadh Chhattisgarh Before: Honble Mr. Anupam Dasgupta Presiding Member Honble Mr. Suresh Chandra Member For the Petitioner Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Devanshu Kumar Devesh, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Dipak R. Dave, Advocate Pronounced on 6th August 2012 ORDER
Anupam Dasgupta This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.04.2010 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, the State Commission) in first appeal no. 373 of 2009. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the original opposite parties (OPs) and set aside the order dated 09.07.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigadh (in short, the District Forum) in complaint case no. 158 of 2008. The District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner with the following directions:
a. The non-applicants shall pay a sum of Rs.29,345.63 to the applicant.
b. The non-applicants shall pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards mental trauma suffered by the applicant.
c. The non-applicants shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the cost incurred in institution of case.
d. The non-applicants shall make the payment within one month from the date of passing of this order, non-compliance of the order there shall be payable the interest @ 12% per month from the date of order.
2(i) The petitioner had purchased a Yo motorbike from respondent 2, the authorised dealer of the manufacturer (respondent 1) in November 2007. This was a non-fossil fuel motor vehicle which ran on electricity stored in a battery that would need to be charged from time to time.
(ii) According to the complainant, the vehicle started malfunctioning almost immediately after the purchase. The allegations in the complaint are reproduced below:
The vehicle was taken to organisation no.1 whereat it was returned after minor repairs. The vehicle after 15 days was again taken there for repair. The vehicle was retained for 1-2 days and then returned back. However, the vehicle again developed problems after a week. Thereafter the complainant approached your good self that you are unable to solve the problems in the said vehicle, it is malfunctioning on every other day, you get my vehicle repaired properly otherwise another vehicle may be given to me. You replied that we will not get the vehicle repaired again and again, you may move a complaint to whomsoever you desired.
That the vehicle has developed problem for about 10-15 days and is at present non-functioning/stalled.
After full repair work, it travels for about 15-20 kms. It has been repaired several times. The vehicle is not being repaired whereas the company has claimed that once it is fully charged, it runs 80 kms, whereas it is not so. The problem, which was extent in the beginning, still exists whereas the vehicle was left at (illegible), articles/parts worth Rs.2000/- is missing. When the same was informed, they expressed their lack of knowledge. It was your duty while rendering services to your consumers to have the vehicle back to consumers after proper repair and maintenance, and return the money back if the vehicle is not repaired, but you have been deficient in your services. You have already been requested several times with respect to replacement and return of money, nonetheless consequent to your deficiency in services, the necessity arose to file the aforesaid case before the learned Consumer Forum.
(iii) As the alleged defects in the motorbike were not rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant, she arranged to issue a legal notice to the OPs which was replied to by OP 1.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.60,543/- along with interest and cost.
(iv) As noticed above, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint with the directions reproduced above and the appeal filed by both the OPs was allowed by the State Commission, leading to this revision petition.
3. We have heard the Proxy Counsel for the Advocate behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents brought on record.
4. It will be useful, in our opinion, to reproduce the relevant discussion in the impugned order:
7. The booklet regarding the Yo Speed No Petrol Vehicle 750 W, has been filed before the District Forum. It contained details regarding the newly introduced vehicle, its features and conditions of the warranty. It appears to be a battery operated vehicle and the battery is required to be charged as and when needed, the term of warranty was, as has been stated by the appellants/ OPs in written version and warranty is limited upto certain conditions and was only applicable on parts and not on whole vehicle. It is not applicable in case the vehicle is subjected to an accident and was repaired. It has been agreed by the complainant/respondent that the vehicle, was subjected to a road accident after one year from the date of purchase. It shows that the vehicle was running satisfactorily till that period. The nature of the accident regarding the vehicle during that period, has not been clearly stated by the complainant, but it appears that only first free services was availed by the complainant and thereafter free service or paid service was not availed by the complainant. There is no expert opinion, in support of the allegation that the vehicle was having some manufacturing defects. Simply because the vehicle was required to be brought to the Service Station for curing some defects, it cannot be held positively that it was having some manufacturing defects, which were not curable. For proving the fact of manufacturing defect, expert opinion is necessary, which is lacking in the present case and then above all the vehicle was subjected to a road accident, which might have adversely affected its mechanism.
8. Thus, we find that only on the basis of repairing of the vehicle on few occasions, it cannot be said that the vehicle was having manufacturing defects. The District Forum, has committed an error in giving such finding only on the basis of few repairs. Such finding is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
5. In the course of hearing, nothing was brought to our notice on behalf of the petitioner to warrant a conclusion that there was any jurisdictional error or illegality or material irregularity in the reasoning and findings of the State Commission. Paragraph 2(ii) above would show that the only specific allegation was that the bike did not travel for 80 km on a single charge of the battery. However, we were not shown any documentary evidence purporting to either reflect such an assurance from either the dealer or the manufacturer or to demonstrate that the motorbike ran for only 15 - 20 km on a single charge of the battery. On the other hand, Mr. Dave emphasised the fact that none of the job cards produced on record showed any of the allegedly repeated defects mentioned in the complaint and that the motorbike had suffered a major accident in the hands of the petitioner which was the main cause of several defects that she alleged. The fact that the petitioner/complainant completely suppressed the information about this accident would also show that she approached the District Forum with unclean hands.
6. In view of the foregoing, the revision petition is dismissed, with direction to the petitioner to deposit, within 4 weeks, cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission for having brought up a baseless and vexatious petition before this Commission. The matter may be listed before the Registrar on 05.09.2012 for ensuring compliance of the direction.
Sd/-
..........................................
[Anupam Dasgupta] Sd/-
..........................................
[Suresh Chandra] Satish