State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Behl Motors Private Limited vs Pawan Kumar & Anr. on 25 February, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
(1) First Appeal No.314/2013
Date of Presentation: 31.10.2013
Date of Decision: 25.02.2014
............................................................................................
Behl Motors Private Limited,
H.O. 7, Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Sauli Khad, Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P.,
Through its Director Shri Sanjeev Behl.
.............. Appellant
Versus
(1) Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Brij Lal,
Resident of Village & Post Office Himmer,
Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P.
(2) Tata Motors,
Having its registered office at Bombay
House, 24 Homi Modi Street, Fort Mumbai-400 001,
Through its Managing Director.
.............. Respondents
For the Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate vice
Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate
....................................................................................
AND
(2)
First Appeal No.323/2013
Date of Presentation: 11.11.2013
Date of Decision: 25.02.2014
....................................................................................
Tata Motors Limited,
Through its Regional Manager (North),
Regional Office, Jeevan Tara Building, 5,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001,
Through its Manager (Legal) in complaint wrongly
mentioned as Tata Motors, Registered Office,
Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street,
Fort Mumbai-400 001,
Through its Managing Director.
.............. Appellant
[(Behl Motors Private Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.314/2013)]
&
[(Tata Motors Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.323/2013)]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Versus
(1) Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Brij Lal,
Resident of Village & Post Office Himmer,
Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P.
(2) Behl Motors Private Limited,
H.O. 7, Industrial Area,
Phase-III, Sauli Khad, Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P.,
Through its Managing Director.
............ Respondents
..........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents No.2: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate vice
Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate.
....................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.)Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Respondent No.1 in both the appeals has engaged a new counsel, after obtaining no objection from the earlier engaged counsel. Application for adjournment was moved by the counsel originally engaged. New counsel is prepared to argue the matter 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Page 2 of 7 [(Behl Motors Private Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.314/2013)] & [(Tata Motors Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.323/2013)] _____________________________________________________________________________________________ today itself and accordingly we have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
2. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, filed by two different opposite parties against the order dated 28.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi.
3. Pawan Kumar, respondent No.1 in both the appeals filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants- M/s. Behl Motors Private Limited (appellant in F.A. No.314/2013) and Tata Motors Limited (appellant in F.A. No.323/2013), alleging that he had purchased a truck, manufactured by M/s. Tata Motors Limited, from M/s. Behl Motors Private Limited, Mandi, on 17.10.2011 and that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect, inasmuch as there was leakage in the driver's cabin, engine consumed more oil than what it should have normally consumed, brake system was defective and steering system had also some manufacturing defect.
4. M/s. Behl Motors Private Limited did not put in appearance before the learned District Forum, despite service and was, therefore, proceeded against ex-parte.
Page 3 of 7
[(Behl Motors Private Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.314/2013)] & [(Tata Motors Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.323/2013)] _____________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Tata Motors Limited, who were impleaded as opposite party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint. It was pleaded that the vehicle was free from any manufacturing defect and as a matter of fact, it had covered 40,000 Kilometres in less than six months, without there being any complaint, leave alone major complaint of manufacturing defect in the engine, steering system, brake system etc. It was stated that vehicle had been brought to the authorised workshops for periodical servicing, which were carried out and money was charged only for replacement of oil and labour charges etc.
6. Learned District Forum, on being approached by the complainant for appointment of Local Commissioner, appointed an Instructor of ITI Mandi, who after inspection reported as follows:-
(i) It was raining heavily, when inspection was carried out and water leakage from both the windows of driver's cabin was taking place, which indicated that there was some manufacturing/ technical fault;
(ii) Brake system was not as efficient as it should have been, because if the paddle was Page 4 of 7 [(Behl Motors Private Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.314/2013)] & [(Tata Motors Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.323/2013)] _____________________________________________________________________________________________ pressed mildly, brake did not work and if it was pressed with a little force, it jammed.
This indicated manufacturing/technical problem;
(iii) Steering system also had manufacturing/ technical problem because the turning on the left side was less; and
(iv) Pickup was also not that much as a new vehicle should have and according to the complainant, vehicle consumed an extra litre of engine oil, after covering every 1,000 Kilometres. This indicated manufacturing/ technical fault in engine.
7. The report does not indicate that there was in fact any manufacturing defect in the cabin, brake system, gear system or the engine. The report simply says that there was some technical fault or problem. The Local Commissioner cannot be said to be an expert to the extent that he may point out whether the engine or any other system of the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect, because he is simply an ITI Instructor and not an Automobile Engineer for ascertaining whether the vehicle or any system of Page 5 of 7 [(Behl Motors Private Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.314/2013)] & [(Tata Motors Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.323/2013)] _____________________________________________________________________________________________ vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. Opinion of an expert was required and qualification of an expert cannot be less than graduation in the concerned discipline.
8. Learned District Forum has, on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Local Commissioner, jumped to the conclusion that vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect and passed the order for replacement of vehicle with a new one or to refund the price with interest, besides ordering payment of compensation and litigation expenses.
9. Since, the aforesaid report is not by a qualified person and also does not point out any manufacturing defect, we accept both the appeals, set aside the impugned order and remand the complaint to the learned District Forum, with the direction to decide the same afresh, after appointing some Automobile or Mechanical Engineer, as an expert, for reporting whether the vehicle or any system of the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect, or a defect which is incurable. Expenses for seeking opinion of such an expert shall be determined by the learned District Page 6 of 7 [(Behl Motors Private Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.314/2013)] & [(Tata Motors Limited Versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. (F.A. No.323/2013)] _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Forum and shall be borne by the opposite parties (appellants in both the appeals).
10. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, on 24.03.2014.
11. This order be placed on the record of appeal, i.e. F.A. No.314/2013, titled Behl Motors Private Limited versus Pawan Kumar & Anr. and its authenticated copy, on the record of F.A. No.323/2013, titled Tata Motors Limited versus Pawan Kumar & Anr.
12. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member February 25, 2014.
*dinesh* Page 7 of 7