State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
True Value Manraj Motors Pvt.Ltd vs Dr.Altamas Hasan Shaikh on 7 August, 2012
1 F.A.No.: 559/2007
Date of filing :18/06/2007
Date of order :07/08/2012
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 559 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 539 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : JALGAON
1. Manager
True Value Manraj Motors Pvt.Ltd
Ajantha road MIDC area,
Jalgaon.
2. Manager
Maruti Udyog Ltd ( Maruti Motors)
Manraj Motors Pvt. Ltd
Ajantha road MIDC area,
Jalgaon. Appellant
VERSUS
Dr.Altamas Hasan Shaikh
R/o.Ujama Clinik Aksa nagar Mehrun,
Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon. Respondent.
CORAM : Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.A.Pradhan present for appellant.
None for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 22/05/2007 passed by the Dist. Forum, Jalgaon, by which the complaint bearing No. CC.539/2006 has been partly allowed and the original opponents have been directed to carry out the repairs/servicing of the four wheeler namely Maruti Omni Van of the original complainant for three years from the date of purchase of that 2 F.A.No.: 559/2007 vehicle free of cost also any defects is found in the said vehicle it will be removed within one month and also directed to pay compensation of Rs3000/- towards mental and physical harassment. If the said direction is not complied with the opponent will be liable for punishment U/Sec. 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Facts in brief giving to present appeal are as under.
The respondent herein is the original complainant. He filed complaint in the Dist. Forum, Jalgaon with the allegation that he purchased afore said Maruti Omni vehicle for consideration of Rs 1,63,000/- from the original opponent i.e. the appellant herein on 18/06/2005. The appellant No. 1 had assured free servicing for one year and he also said that the said vehicle is having model of Euro-II but it was subsequently found that the said vehicle is converted model. The appellant No.1 has also assured the said vehicle would run 15 Kms in one litre petrol. However it was found that it consumed one litre petrol in 8 Kms. Moreover, there is also defects in the engine of that vehicle and when the vehicle was taken to the opponent for repairing, the opponent No. 2 should not have taken charges for servicing. The complainant installed gas kit from out side agency in that vehicle and hence the opponent No. 2 felt it bad and charged Rs 527/- on 24/12/2005 for repairing of that vehicle and put the entry on the receipt that gas kit has been installed from out side workshop. The opponent No. 2 has also refused to do the repairing work of head light of that vehicle. The opponent i.e. appellant also refused to do the repairing work of that vehicle when it's some parts were broken. Therefore the complainant got the said vehicle repaired from other garage and incurred expenses of Rs 8000/- for the said repairing. Therefore the complainant served notice through advocate to both the appellants i.e. the original opponent and requested them to do the work of the head of the said vehicle and also do servicing and to pay compensation for selling the vehicle converting under it Euro-I model. The opponents gave false reply to that notice. The complainant 3 F.A.No.: 559/2007 therefore filed the complaint against the opponents praying that they be given direction to do the repairing of that vehicle and to pay him compensation of Rs 8000/- towards expenses incurred by him for repairing and also to pay compensation of Rs 20,000/- towards conversion of the model of that vehicle and also to pay compensation of Rs 15000/- towards mental and physical harassment and to pay costs of Rs 2000/-.
3. Both the opponent i.e. appellant appeared before the Dist. Forum and opposed the claim by filing written version. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the said vehicle from opponent No.1 for consideration of Rs 1,63,000/-. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied. It is their case in brief that the complainant fixed gas kit in that vehicle without their consent and it has adversely affected the machine of that vehicle. The complainant also got repaired that the vehicle from other source and committed breach of the agreement. The opponent never refused to carry out the repairs of that vehicle. The complainant has also suppressed material fact that the said vehicle met with an accident and the spot panchanama of that vehicle was prepared on 05/11/2005 at 4.30 p.m. It shows that the vehicle has sustained damages. The complainant did not handle the said vehicle carefully and therefore due to his own fault the opponents can not be held liable. Therefore it is prayed that complaint may be dismissed.
4. The Dist. Forum after giving opportunity of adducing evidence to both the parties and hearing arguments of advocates of both the parties passed impugned and order and granted the relief as noted in the opening para of this judgment.
5. We have heard Adv. S.A.Pradhan for the appellant on 19/07/2012. The respondent and his advocate failed to appear for hearing. It was also found that notice was duly served to the 4 F.A.No.: 559/2007 respondent but he did not appear. The appellant advocate also submitted written notes of argument.
6. The following facts are not disputed. The complainant had purchased E-II Maruti Van from the opponents on 28/02/2005 for consideration of Rs 1,63,000/-. The opponent No.1 had agreed for free service for the period of one year. The complainant had taken that vehicle to opponent No. 2 for servicing and repairing. At that time opponent No. 2 noted the receipt of payment repairing charges of Rs 527/- that the complainant has fixed gas kit from out side source. The Dist. Forum while granting the aforesaid relief to the original complainant mainly considered the fact that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant after winning lucky draw and there was extended period of warranty of three years of that vehicle under that lucky draw scheme and accordingly the complainant is entitled to free repairing and servicing for total period of three years. The Dist. Forum has also observed that there is no evidence to show that the vehicle is converted from Euro I to Euro II type and then it is sold to the complainant. The . Dist. Forum has also observed that from the spot panchanama it is proved that the vehicle met with an accident on 05/11/2005 and the complainant could have made claim to the insurance company for repairing charges as the accident took place during the validity period of insurance of that vehicle but he made no such claim to the insurance company.
7. The advocate of the appellant submitted that the Dist. Forum has not considered that when the vehicle met with accident, as per exclusion clause of the warranty, it could not have given direction to do the free servicing and repairing of that vehicle for three years by the appellants. He further submitted that the Dist. Forum has also erroneously observed that there could not be any adverse effect on the machine of the vehicle due to fitting of gas kit from out side agency.
5 F.A.No.: 559/20078. After considering the material brought on record we find substance in the afore said submission of advocate of the appellant. The complainant suppressed the material fact that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 05/11/2005 and it sustained heavy damages. The copy of the panchanama of that vehicle prepared by police shows that front glass and bumper were broken and the front tin shit is pressed inside, steering is also pressed inside, the inner entire fibber has been broken, head bulb and radiator and left sight shock up have been also broken.
9. The said panchanama was prepared on 05/11/2005. The said vehicle was purchased on 28/06/2005. Thus it met with road traffic accident within six month of its purchase. No doubt the opponent has agreed free servicing for the period of one year but it is evident that the warranty of one year does not cover any repairs or replacement required as a result of accident or collision. Moreover, it also does not cover risk about malfunctioning due bad fuel quality. It also does not cover risk when accessories are fitted in a vehicle not approved by the appellant.
10 In the instant case the complainant fixed gas kit in that vehicle from out side work shop without consent of the appellants. Moreover, the afore said vehicle has been extensively damaged in an accident. Hence, the afore said warranty of one year is not applicable to such a case. The Dist. Forum below has not considered this material aspects of the present case and erroneously gave direction to the appellants to carry out the free servicing or repairing of that vehicle for three years from the date of its purchase.
11. Moreover, there is no case of the original complainant that he purchased that vehicle after winning it in lucky draw and that period of warranty is therefore extended further for two years. Thus in the absence of any such case of the complainant, the Dist. Forum has erroneously gave direction to the appellants to carry out 6 F.A.No.: 559/2007 repairing/servicing of that vehicle for the extended period of three years free of cost. The complainant did not seek any such relief in the complaint as granted by the Dist. Forum. The complainant had prayed that direction be given to the original opponent to repair that vehicle and to pay him Rs 8000/- towards expenses incurred by him for repairing.
12. In our view the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the complaint, since due to his own negligence the said vehicle met with an accident and sustained heavy damage and since he fixed gas kit to that vehicle from out side workshop without any consent of the appellant. Complainant also adduced no cogent evidence to prove that he incurred expenses of Rs 8000/- for repairing of his vehicle. Hence on this ground also he is not entitled to claim compensation of Rs 8000/- In the result we hold that the impugned judgment and order is not legal, correct and proper and it needs tobe set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed in CC.No.539/2006 by Dist. Forum Jalgaon on 22/05/2007 is hereby set aside.
3. The complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to costs.
5 Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, B.A.Shaikh
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Patil A.H.
Steno H.G.
7 F.A.No.: 559/2007