National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Chandan Mondal & Ors. on 19 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4146 OF 2012 (From the order dated 06.07.2012 in First Appeal No. 218/2011 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Through Mr. Abhishek Chand, Authorised Representative Mahindra Towers Worli Road, Mumbai 400 018 ... Petitioner Versus 1. Sri Chandan Mondal s/o Sri Mohan Mondal r/o Vill Gopalnagar, P.O. Dabra, P.S. Pandua, Dist. Hooghly, West Bengal 2. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Having its office at Khagragarh More, B.T. Road, Golap Bag, P.O. & Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal 3. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Having its head office at Asansol, P.O. Asansol, Dist Burdwan, West Bengal 4. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Pandua, Kalitala, G.T. Road, P.O. & P.S. Pandua Distt. Hooghly West Bengal 5. Hooghly Co-operative Agri & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Pandua, Dist Hooghly West Bengal Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3580 OF 2012 (From the order dated 06.07.2012 in First Appeal No. 218/2011 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) 1. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Having its office at Khagragarh More, B.T. Road, Gopal Bag, P.O. & Dist. Burdwan, West Bengal 2. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Having its head office at Asansol, P.O. Asansol, Dist Burdwan, West Bengal 3. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Pandua, Kalitala, G.T. Road, P.O. & P.S. Pandua Distt. Hooghly West Bengal ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Sri Chandan Mondal s/o Sri Mohan Mondal r/o Vill Gopalnagar, P.O. Dabra, P.S. Pandua, Dist. Hooghly, West Bengal 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Mahindra Towers Worli Road, No. 13, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 3. Hooghly Co-operative Agri & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Pandua, Dist Hooghly West Bengal Respondent(s) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS RP No. 4146 / 2012 For the Petitioner(s) Ms. Aparna Mattoo, Advocate For the Respondent-1 Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate For Respondent 2 4 Mr. Avrojyoti Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Mithun Chandola, Advocate For Respondent-5 Exparte RP No. 3580 / 2012 For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Avrojyoti Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Mithun Chandola, Advocate For the Respondent 1 Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate For Respondent 2 Ms. Aparna Mattoo, Advocate For Respondent 3 Exparte PRONOUNCED ON : 19TH SEPTEMBER 2013 O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.07.2012, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 218/2011, Sri Chandan Mondal versus Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, dismissing the consumer complaint no. 139 of 2008 filed by respondent no. 1/complainant was set aside. This single order shall dispose of both these revision petitions and a copy of the same be placed on each file.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Sri Chandan Mondal and another, purchased one Mahindra Tractor known as Bhumi Putra Model No. 47501 REV-3371 in the month of December 2006 from the petitioner, Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Golap Bag, P.O. & District Burdwan after raising a loan from the Hooghly Co-operative Agri and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Pandua, District Hooghly. The other petitioner, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., are the manufacturers of the said tractor. It has been alleged in the complaint filed by Sri Chandon Mondal that just after 15 days of the purchase of the vehicle, he started facing problems with the same.
It was found that the water pump system of the vehicle had broke down without any reason, fan was also not operating and then the battery allotted at the time of purchase, was found to be not functioning. The tractor had to be shut down for many days and the complainant incurred heavy losses.
The complainant lodged a complaint with the office of OP, Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Asansol, District Burdwan. The water system was repaired by the OP, but the battery was not replaced. Again, after a few months, the pump nozzle element was badly damaged and the vehicle was taken to the OP who detained the same for 7 days in their factory, but the repair work done was not to the full satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the engine started giving problems and there was frequent percolation of water inside the vehicle, resulting in non-functioning of the vehicle.
All these problems faced by the complainant were within the warranty period of the vehicle. The complainant had to hire another tractor for his agricultural operations and moreover, he had to pay the instalments of loan amount raised from the bank. The complainant requested that the OPs should be asked to replace the tractor or to refund the purchase amount to the complainant and also compensate him for mental agony and harassment. The District Forum vide their order dated 07.03.2011 dismissed the complaint, saying that there was no credible and adequate evidence for manufacturing defect in the vehicle. An appeal was filed against the said order of the District Forum before the State Commission.
The State Commission passed the following order:-
That the respondents shall take immediate steps to take the vehicle to their workshop at their cost and shall thoroughly examine the vehicle for rectification of any defect or fault, manufacturing defect or whatever so that the vehicle becomes operational to the perfect satisfaction of the Appellant within 45 days from the date of this order. The appeal succeeds and is allowed on contest. Further, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
shall be payable within 45 days from the date of this order for the mental agony and actual loss suffered so far by the idleness of the vehicle, failing which an interest @ 8% per annum shall be charged on the said amount till the date of realisation.
It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on record.
4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. that they had not shown any deficiency in service or negligence in the matter, because they had attended to the defects pointed out by the complainant from time to time and removed those defects to the satisfaction of the complainant.
He also stated that they have produced sufficient evidence before the District Forum, saying that they had repaired the vehicle many times to the satisfaction of the complainant. The District Forum has also observed that the petitioners Rudra Automobiles were not found to be negligent in providing their services from the face of record.
5. Learned counsel for Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. stated that they there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Whatever defects had been pointed out from time to time, always related to problems in the running of the vehicle only. The job cards made by M/s. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. from time to time also indicated that the defects as pointed out by the complainant were removed from time to time, to the satisfaction of the complainant and there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect. In case, the complainant felt that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the matter should have been referred for seeking an expert opinion to establish this version.
6. Learned counsel invited our attention to the order passed by this Commission in Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. versus Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad [RP No. 1652/2006 decided on 07.05.2010] in which it was held that the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect.
7. In M/s. Sydney & Lydon Realtors & Associates versus M/s. Goa Motors Pvt. Ltd. [Revision Petition No. 3220 of 2012 decided on 25.09.2012], the National Commission have taken a similar view. The orders passed by the Honble Apex Court in many other cases have been relied upon by them, while deciding this case.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/complainant vehemently argued that the vehicle, in question, started showing defects only 15 days after its purchase and had to be taken to M/s. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for repairs. The very fact that the vehicle developed problems many a time and had to be taken for repairs, shows it clearly that it is a defective vehicle. As a consequence, the complainant who was a buyer had suffered very badly. He had to hire another tractor for his agricultural operations. Moreover, the order by which the State Commission had ordered to examine the vehicle thoroughly for rectification of any defect or fault or manufacturing defect or whatsoever, was perfectly valid, because it was the duty of the petitioner to repair the vehicle within the period of warranty. The learned counsel further stated that at the moment, the tractor was lying idle, as it could not be used till the defects were removed. Referring to the revision petition filed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the said petitioner never appeared before the District Forum and they did not file any document or written version in their support. Before the State Commission also, they had not filed any reply.
9. Learned counsel invited our attention to a number of cases decided by this Commission in support of his arguments.
10. In Abhaya Kumar Panda versus M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited [First Appeal No. 83 and 90 of 1991 decided on 10.12.1991], the National Commission held that when the vehicle suffered from major manufacturing defect, it should have been replaced by the manufacturer.
11. In Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. versus Vasantrao Dagaji Patil and Anr. [First Appeal No. 36 of 1996 decided on 24.05.2002], it has been held that there was deficiency in service, because the new vehicle was having defects.
12. In Shankar Automobile versus Deepak Kumar Singh [I (2009) CPJ 80 (NC)], it has been held that when the vehicle was found defective, immediately after purchase, the dealer cannot escape liability towards manufacturing defect.
13. In R. Raja Rao versus Mysore Auto Agencies [II (2006) CPJ 64 (NC)], it has been held that when trouble started within few days of purchase of vehicle and persisted even after several repairs, the OPs/Dealer and Manufacturer were jointly and severally liable to refund cost of the defective vehicle with interest @12% p.a.
14. Learned counsel argued that the order passed by the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record and should be upheld.
15. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is clearly borne out from the facts on record that the tractor in question did suffer from many defects, ever since the date of purchase and it had to be carried to the dealer for repairs many times. Copies of job-cards placed on record are ample evidence of proof that the vehicle did have defects and the complainant was put to lot of hardship on account of that.
It cannot be stated by any stretch of imagination that the vehicle was taken for repairs without any problem of any kind. The definition of defect as given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby reproduced below:-
"defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;
16. The manufacturer of the vehicle M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra tried to explain that there was no defect in the vehicle and there is no opinion of any expert to establish any manufacturing defect.
Looking at the definition of defect in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clearly proved that the vehicle, in question, was a defective vehicle. It shall be futile to go into minute/extreme technicalities in order to establish whether the defects pointed out qualified to be classified as manufacturing defect or not. It is a hard fact that the consumer who is a farmer, was put to a lot of mental agony, harassment by the purchase of the said defective vehicle and even now, it has been stated that the vehicle is lying idle and a lot of time has already been consumed in litigation between the parties.
17. It has been stated very clearly in a number of orders pronounced by the National Commission, as pointed out by the respondent that the liability lies on the OP to remove the defects in the vehicle to the satisfaction of the consumer/complainant. It may also be stated here that it has been acknowledged by the Honble Apex Court in several Judgements that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent legislation and its sole aim is to secure social purpose to promote the facilities in a comprehensive manner for settlement of issues involved in the consumer complaints and to assess the damage. Honble Apex Court have clearly stated in the case Lucknow Development Authority versus M.K. Gupta as reported in [1994 (1) SCC 243] as under:-
The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer, which he faces against powerful business, described as, a network of rackets or a society in which, producers have secured power to rob the rest and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked.
18. As stated earlier by the impugned order, the State Commission have directed the respondents/OPs to take immediate steps to take the vehicle to their workshop at their cost and to thoroughly examine the vehicle for rectification of any defect or fault, manufacturing defect or whatsoever, so that the vehicle becomes operational to the perfect satisfaction of the appellant/complainant. We do not find anything wrong with this order, as it is the bound duty of the OPs to take care of the interest of the consumer by removing the defects in the vehicle. The State Commission has also allowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and loss suffered by the consumer by the idleness of the vehicle. We do not find any fault with this part of the order as well.
19. Based on the discussion above, when it is made out that the tractor in question is a defective vehicle, whether it is a manufacturing defect in the strict technical sense or not, it becomes the paramount duty of the opposite parties to attend to this aspect and ensure that the defects are removed and the vehicle is delivered in a perfectly fit condition to the consumer alongwith a certificate of fitness under the signatures of a top technical officer of the manufacturer not below the rank of General Manager. Both the opposite parties are, therefore, directed to take necessary steps to make the vehicle defect free and then deliver to the complainant/respondent alongwith a certificate duly signed by a technical authority as stated above within a period of two months. The matter be listed on 17.12.2013 for compliance and for further hearing.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/