State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri M V Vijayan vs The Managing Director on 12 June, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1168/2024 ( Date of Filing : 03 May 2024 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/03/2024 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/243/2017 of District Bangalore 3rd Additional) 1. SRI M V VIJAYAN PROPRIETOR PRECISION ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT GEETHA K T W O LATE M V VIJAYAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R AT NO 130 CHIKKABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE 560097 2. MISS CHITRA M V D O LATE M V VIJAYAN AHED ABOUT 27 YEARS NO 130 CHIKKABETTAHALLI VIDYARANAYAPURA POST BANGALORE 560097 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CHOWGULE AND CO P LTD M H DIVISION KHANDEPER PLANT USGO GOA 403406 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PRODUCTION CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LTD, M.H.DIVISION, KHANDEPER PLANT, USGO, GOA NORTH GOA GOA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 12 Jun 2024 Final Order / Judgement A-1168/2024 12-6-2024 ORDER ON ADMISSION BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/complainant in complaint No.243/2017 has preferred this appeal against the dismissal order made by the 3rd Addl. Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru and submits that the original complainant Sri.M.V.Vjayan had purchased a Hydraulic Crane from the Opposite Parties vide Tax Invoice dated 24.12.2014 and on the same day the said vehicle was delivered. He noticed some defects in the vehicle and requested the Opposite Parties many times for repair. Even in spite of repeated requests, there was no answer or any response. On 12.2.2015 the complainant gave the vehicle for repair to M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. Authorized Service Agency and job card was created. The complainant had paid nearly Rs.2,68,063/- towards repair charges and he took the delivery. The vehicle was repaired only due to defect found in the vehicle sold by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have supplied/sold a defective vehicle which is not in good condition only in order to gain wrongfully. Hence alleged deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission.
2. The District Commission without considering the said facts dismissed the complaint without any valid reasons. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The Opposite Parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,68,063/- with interest @18% per annum for selling the defective vehicle. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Commission and allow the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity by directing the Opposite Parties to pay the above said amount.
3. Heard on admission.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and other documents produced. Here we noticed that one Sri.M.V.Vijayan had purchased the second hand vehicle from the Opposite Parties as it is where it is basis and he had purchased the vehicle in the year, 2014. Later on, he alleged defect in the vehicle and filed a complaint in the year 2017. It is also noticed that, the vehicle was plyed nearly 1,10,000 kms, after plying such a vast kilometers, the allegation of a manufacturing defects cannot be justifiable. At the same time no expert opinion was provided before the District Commission to establish the vehicle had a manufacturing defect at the time of purchase itself, when such being the case, the claim made by the complainant is not justifiable. The District Commission after appreciating the material produced has rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any valid reasons to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. At the same no valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. As such the appeal is dismissed and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The impugned order 6-3-2024 passed by the 3rd Addl. Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.243/2017 is confirmed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER