State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sushma D. Lokegaonkar vs M/S. Vip (M) Automobiles Ltd & Ors on 11 April, 2011
BEFORE THE HON BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI First Appeal No. A/05/1338 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/06/2005 in Case No.98/982 of District Mumbai Suburban) 1. SMT. SUSHMA D. LOKEGAONKAR NEW MORE BUNGALOW, 1ST FLOOR, R.NO.28, TAGORE RD, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI-400054. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. VIP (M) AUTOMOBILES LTD. NEAR NIMBUS BUS STOP, OPP.SURAT RAILWAY STATION SURAT 2. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD. AKURDI, PUNE-411035. PUNE. Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENT Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT: Ms.Rashmi Manne-Advocate for the appellant ORDER
Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Honble President Heard Ms.Rashmi Manne-Advocate for the appellant.
The order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban on 22/06/2005 in consumer complaint no.982/98 is challenged in this appeal. The complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. Therefore, this appeal is filed by the complainant.
Dispute pertains to the scooter which is manufactured by opponent no.2-M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Opponent no.1-M/s.VIP (M) Automobiles Ltd. is a dealer. Before we consider controversy involved, we would like to keep on record that opponent no.2 has stopped the manufacturing of the scooter Chetak model, which the complainant had purchased on 19/01/1997. Therefore, manufacturer presently is not manufacturing any parts of the said scooter.
Grievance of the complainant is that day one the scooter was purchased it was defective and main defect was in respect of clutch and even though it was repaired, the said defect persistently continued for a period of 5 months and, therefore, scooter was given into possession of opponent no.1-dealer. According to complainant said scooter is lying with the dealer M/s.VIP (M) Automobiles Ltd. since 1998. It appears from the letter dated 07/07/1998 that in respect of scooter it was informed by M/s.VIP (M) Automobiles Ltd. that the scooter had been repaired and service Engineer Mr.Deshpande of Bajaj Auto Ltd. had taken a trial of the vehicle and surveyed (certified) it. It was further informed that the said engineer had also personally called complainant on 02/07/1998 and asked her to take delivery of the vehicle. Therefore, complainant was requested to collect the vehicle from the workshop and the complainant shall take a trial of the vehicle. This letter was not responded by the complainant. Thus, it appears that after the scooter was handed over to the opponent no.1. Opponent no.1 repaired it and was ready to hand over it, but the complainant had not taken delivery of the vehicle. It is stated that the vehicle was/is lying with the opponent no.1. Even today Ms.Manne-Advocate who appears for the complainant states that vehicle is with the opponent no.1. Opponent no.1 though served is absent. Mr.S.D.Kale, Assistant Legal Manager appears for opponent no.2 and he states that since the production has been stopped, there is no dealership with the opponent no.1 -M/s.VIP (M) Automobiles Ltd. In the result, now what we find that whatever the grievance was there that was resolved by the parties, then in 1998 itself. Why the delivery was not taken by the complainant is for the complainant to explain. Complainant has no explanation but from the submissions of Ms.Manne-Advocate, it appears that complainant wants to contend that the whole scooter should be replaced because it was having manufacturing defect. Defect in the clutch cannot be said to be complete manufacturing defect of the vehicle so as to replace vehicle. Apart from that there is no expert report as observed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pointing out that there was/is any manufacturing defect in the said scooter. If any part is found to be defective then so far as clutch is concerned company states that it had replaced said part and was also examined by their engineer. Therefore, we cannot say that there was/is deficiency of service on the part of the opponents after the scooter was sold. In order to establish manufacturing defect in the complaint, complainant should have brought expert evidence. That at least he should have submitted an application before the District Consumer Forum to send the vehicle to the Vehicle Research Centre provided by the Central Government to find out whether there is manufacturing defect. No such attempt has been made. What we find on record that there is one letter dated 20/1/2004 issued by the Principal of ITI Bombay. It has been stated that said vehicle requires a repair namely some work of the engine will have to be done, repainting is necessary and other parts are required to be replaced and likely expenditure is `6000/-.
However, in respect of defects which were noted by them they have opined that they are unable to give any opinion as to whether those defects were since the day of the sale and/or subsequently developed. This letter is addressed to the complainant. If the complainant states that since 1998 vehicle is in possession of opponent no.1, then how the vehicle came into possession in 2003 so as to submit it to the ITI Principal for examination is not explained anywhere. But if in 2003 vehicle was with the complainant then only inference follows that the vehicle was taken and used and, thereafter, it has been submitted to further testing of Principal of ITI, otherwise if the defects were found complainant should have approached to the dealer or manufacturer. When initially it has been noted that clutch was defective, there was no question of requirement of repairs in engine and especially repainting. If the vehicle is used, wear and tear is natural in respect of automobiles and if the vehicle is purchased in 1998, after 2003 wear and tear, repainting, etc. is very much necessary. In short, letter issued by the Principal of ITI on 20/01/2004 does not help the complainant in any manner for the purpose of deciding that there was any manufacturing defect.
It is further to be noted that if the complaint was pending and if the complainant could submit the vehicle to the Principal, ITI why the vehicle was not submitted to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for the purpose of examination so that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum could have arranged examination of the said vehicle. Therefore, what we find that the complaint has been rightly rejected by the District Consumer Forum. No interference is called for. Hence the order:-
ORDER Appeal is rejected.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced 11th April, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.