State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Chanchal Ghosh vs . M/S Rajarshi Motors Private Ltd And Ors on 16 June, 2008
JudgementTripura2008-06-16 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION TRIPURA. APPEAL NO.F.A-43 OF 2007 Sri Chanchal Ghosh, S/O, Sri Nityananda Ghosh, Joynagar Road No-6, P.O-Agartala, P.S-West Agartala . Appellants. Vs 1. M/S Rajarshi Motors Private Ltd A.A. Road, Chandrapur, Agartala, West Tripura. 2. The Divisional Manager, Customer Service Division, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. Jamshedpur 831010. 3. The Manager, TELCO Ltd. Regional Sales Office, Godrej Building, 3rd Floor, Ulubari, Guwahati-731007. . . . Respondent. PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.SARKAR, FORMER JUDGE, GAUHATI HIGH COURT, PRESIDENT, STATE COMMISSION. MR.G.SARKAR, MEMBER, STATE COMMISSION. MR.B.K.SHARMA, STATE COMMISSION. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Bhattaaharjee, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Bhomik, Senior Advocate. Mr.S.R. Dey Advocate Date of hearing : 24/05/2008 Delivery of Judgment : 16/06/2008 JUDGEMENT
MR. B.K. SHARMA. IAS (RETD.).
MEMBER This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the District Forum, West Tripura on 11-10-2007 in case No. CPA-68 of 2003.
2. The case of the complaint appelleant is that he purchased a Chassis of TATA truck from the respondent No-1 M/S Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10-12-2002 with financial assistance from TIDC. According to the complaint after construction of the body of the truck from the respondent No-1 M/S Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10-12-2002 with complaint after construction of the body of truck and completion of the formalities regarding registration etc in first week of February, 2003, the truck was sent to Kolkata on a trip. On its return journey on 12-2-2003 from Kolkata to Agartala the Engine of the vehicle suddenly brust at Sidangchera near Kumarghat. The vehicle was placed in the work shop of the respondent No-1 on 17/02/2003 for necessary repairs. The vehicle was repaired by the respondent No-1 and handed over to the complaint on 05/04/2003 to the satisfaction of the complaint. The complaint was aggrieved because of the delay of more than 50 days in said repairing and claimed compensation for the financial loss suffered by him from the respondent No-1 demanding the said amount and thereafter, filed the case in the District Forum, West Tripura.
3. The respondent No-1 and 3 in their written objection stated that the said TATA truck was used by the complaint for commercial purpose and hence the complaint was not maintainable under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They further stated that the complaint did not produce the Operators Service Book along with vehicle and hence within a reasonable time and delivered the same to the complaint. They also alleged that the complaint had altered the Chassis and other parts illegally in violation of the warranty conditions and therefore, the complaint should not have made any complaint about the said repairing works.
4. From the complaint, written objection and their evidence adduced from both sides, it was found by the District Forum, West Tripura that the complaint had failed to prove that there was deficiency in service of respondents.
5. We have heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S.R. Dey, learned counsel representing the respondents.
6. We have gone through the judgment of the District Forum, West Tripura and the documents available on record. From the work order No-2600 dated 19/02/2003 and not on 17/02/2000 as stated by the complaint. From the entries made in the body of the work order it is seen that the operator service book of that vehicle was not submitted by the complaint to the respondent No-1 on 19/02/2003 and that it was submitted by him on 22/03/2003 only. The complaint failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the said operators Service Book had been handed over by him to the Respondent No-1 demanded for the said Operators Service Book from the complaint but the complaint in his reply never mentioned that the said Service Book has already been submitted by him on any date prior to 22/03/2003. The complaint did not produce any evidence to prove this point. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the Operators Service Book was submitted by the complaint to the Respondent No-1 on 22/03/2003. The complaint did not produce any evidence to prove this point. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the Operators Service Book was submitted by the complaint to the Respondent No-1 on 22/03/2003 only.
7. Thereafter, Respondent No-1 completed that repairing works within a reasonable time of 15 days. The complaint failed to show that there were any terms in the warranty condition in the Operators Service Book fixing any time period for the completion of the repairing works by the Authorized Dealer of TATA Motors. Thus, the complaint failed to prove that there was any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents in the process of repairing of the truck of the complaint.
8. It is also seen from the record that initially M/S Rajarshi Motors pvt. Ltd. (Respondent no.1) repaired the truck of the complaint free of cost as the defects arose within the warranty period. Later, when the complaint sent an advocates notice dated 19/04/2003 upon the respondent no-1 claiming compensation amounting to Rs, 1, 45,000/- for the alleged delay in repairing the truck, the respondent first tried to mitigate the issue through discussions. When this attempt failed M/S Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. sent a reply to the advocates notice 06/06/2003 in which they claimed to have discovered that the appellant claimant had made alterations/modifications in the vehicle un-authorized in violation of the warranty condition and hence he was not entitled to get the vehicle repaired free costs. In this reply M/S Raja Motors Pvt. Ltd demanded a payment of Rs. 46,931/- from the claimant appellant within a month from the date of issue of that reply.
9. The vehicle, as admitted by the appellant and the respondent had been lying with the respondent No-1 at least for the period from 19/02/2003 to 5/04/2003 during which the repairing works were taken up y the respondent No-1. The Respondent No-1 failed to discover the alleged un-authorized alterations / modifications in the vehicle during this period. It is surprising to note that the Respondent No-1 discovered the same after handing over the vehicle to the appellant claimant when the vehicle was not within their reach. But they claimed to have taken photographs of alleged modifications / alterations in the vehicle made by the complainant un-authorisedly. Had the appellant claimant made by the complainant the said alterations / modifications in his vehicle prior to 19/02/2003, the same would have been noticed by the Respondent no-1 during repairing and in such a case they would have repaired the vehicle free of cost as the accident took place within the warranty period. This shows that the appellant claimant had not violated any of the warrant conditions before the accident took place. Therefore, the claim of the Respondent No-1 that the appellant complainant had violated warranty conditions by making alterations/modifications un-authorisedly in the vehicle before the accident cannot be accepted. Hence, the Respondent No-1 is not entitled to the repairing cost as claimed by them subsequently.
10. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered view that there exists no ground for interference with the judgment passed by the District Forum, West Tripura on 11-10-2007 in case no. CPA-68 of 2003. We are also of the opinion that M/S Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. is not entitled to receive the cost of repairing of the truck from the appellant complainant.
11. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the District Forum, West Tripura on 11-10-2007 in case No. CPA-68 of 2003 up held. At the same time, it is ordered that the M/S Rajarshi motors Pvt. Ltd. can not claim the repairing costs of the vehicle taken up by them between 17/02/2003 to 5/04/2003 and hence, they should not pursue with the same.
12. However, we make no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER