State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Caculo Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs Ameya V. Kulkarni & Another on 10 January, 2024
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI-GOA
In the matter of Revision Petition 03 of 2021 in Consumer
Complaint 03 of 2019.
Before: Adv. Mrs. Varsha Bale, Officiating President
Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar, Member
Adv. Ms.Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member
Caculo Cars Pvt. Ltd
NH-17, Verna Plateau,
Salcete-Goa 403722. .....Petitioner
V.
Mr. Ameya V. Kulkarni
s/o Vaikunth Laxman Kulkarni,
r/o Flat No.A-3/1, Paradise Apts.,
Aquem, Alto, Salcete,
Margao Goa- 403601. ....Respondent-1
Honda Cars India Ltd.,
Zonal office-West,
D-123, TTC Industrial Area,
MIDC Shiravane, Nerul,
Thane Belapur road,
Navi Mumbai-Maharashtra. ...Respondent-2
Adv. A. Fernandes holding for Adv. Shri. G. Teles present for Petitioner.
Adv. Shri B. P. Sardessai present for Respondent-1.
None present for Respondent-2.
DATE: 10/01/2024
JUDGEMENT
[per Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member]
1. This Order shall finally dispose off Revision Petition under section 47 (1) (b) of CPA 2019 arising out of order dated 26th March 2021, passed by District Commission South, Margao Goa, in CC/03/2019.
12. The Petitioner herein before this Commission was the Opposite Party-1, Respondent-1 is the original Complainant and Respondent-2 was the original Opposite Party-2 and before District Commission, South.
3. The brief facts of the case are herein mentioned below:
a. The contention of the Petitioner: i. That the Respondent-1 had filed the complaint on the
allegation that the vehicle purchased by Respondent-1 from the petitioner had manufacturing defects i.e. while driving, the vehicle would suddenly and on its own move towards the left side and sometimes towards the right side and further alleged that despite servicing the vehicle several times the defect could not be repaired, thereby causing the Respondent-1 tremendous losses and inconvenience amounting to deficiency in service on part of the Petitioner and Respondent-2.
ii. Thereafter the Petitioner was served with summons/notice from the South Goa Consumer Commission, at Margao and was received by the reception counter of the Petitioner and marked to the service department of the Petitioner. The Petitioner/Opposite Party-1 then filed its written version opposing the reliefs sought by the Complainant and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
iii. That the Petitioner/Opposite Party-1 has never acted in a manner which amounts to deficiency-in-service, considering the facts that the Petitioner/Opposite Party- 1 is only a dealer of Honda Cars Pvt. Ltd. and deals with sales and service only of the vehicles from Honda Pvt. Ltd.
2iv. Further that the original Complainant filed an application dated 30/04/2019 in order to refer the vehicle i.e. subject matter for expert report, wherein the said application was allowed by District Commission, South and by way of Order dated 07/06/2016 the car was referred to expert report. That on receipt of the said report dated 06/01/2020 the Petitioner herein filed objection dated 12/02/2020, to the said report and also sought for cross examination of the expert who prepared the report, to which the objections were partly allowed by the Order passed by District Commission, South dated 12/03/2020 and the Petitioner was permitted to submit the questionnaire which was sent to the expert personal for answering. The Questionnaire was replied to by the expert who prepared the report dated 10/11/2020 and copies of the same were given to the Advocate for the Opposite Party. Thereafter the Petitioner made an application dated 29/01/2021 to the South Goa District Commission, seeking leave to further cross examine the expert through video conferencing.
v. The District Commission South passed the Impugned Order dated 26/03/2021 "In our opinion it is necessary to hear the arguments on merits to decide whether permission for further cross examination of expert as prayed for by the Opposite Party vide exhibited 36 and 35 is to be allowed. The issue of necessity of further cross examination of expert is left open."
vi. Therefore the Applicant being aggrieved by the order passed by District Commission, South filed the present revision on the following grounds:
That the Impugned Order passed by District Commission South Goa, dated 26/3/2021 is illegal, untenable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case.3
That the Impugned Order is cryptic, vague and does not give any reasoning why the District Commission South has kept the request of the opponents in abeyance to be considered at the stage of the final arguments of the complaint, on this ground alone the said Order is perverse.
That the District Commission, South ought to have examine the reports of the Applicant/Opponent for further cross examination of the expert having due regards to the powers nested in itself as a Civil Court to re-examine witness and also considering the nature of controversy involved in the present case.
4. The Applicant further prayed that the impugned order dated 26/03/2021 passed by District Commission South be quashed and set aside.
5. The case of the Respondent No.1 (original Complainant) i. That the Complainant purchased vehicle WR-V 1.5 VX MT (i-DTEC) bearing registration No. GA-08-N-8071 on 26/07/2018 and within a week's time of driving, the Respondent noticed that the vehicle would consistently get pulled to the left side from the central line despite the steering wheel being straight and therefore the vehicle was brought to the Petitioner for wheel alignment. However the defect continued to prevail and the vehicle would invariably be pulled towards the left side despite efforts and Honda requested to bring the vehicle, steering centring was done but to no avail the defect had versant as vehicle would move to the left side and also to the right side.
ii. Since the Opposite Party miserably failed to rectify the defects or even diagnose the same the present 4 proceedings were initiated as the vehicle has manufacturing defects whereby the vehicle was pulling on the left side while the steering wheel of the vehicle was kept straight.
iii. Further that the application of the Complainant/Respondent No 1 u/s 13(1)(c) dated 30/04/2019 concluded in appointing ARAI Expert for inspection of the vehicle, in contrary who has provided their report and after the Report was given objection which was raised by the OP and the Expert has their detailed report which sufficiently substantiates and unequivocally fortifies that the vehicle holds defects.
iv. Therefore being unsuccessful and not being able to achieve what the opponents were expecting to have a report in their favour, despite manufacturing defects in their favour the present revision petition, and further moved an application to cross examine the expert and the arguments canvassed keeping in the consideration of detailed reports of ARAI expert, the Impugned Order came to be passed.
v. Furthermore that the Petitioner vide their Revision has unnecessary prolonged the Litigation subject to continuation of harassment to possess and forcibly access the vehicle which suffers from defects and that there is sufficient material on record i.e. expert report, response to the Objections, in nature of Interrogatories and provisions of CPA being a beneficial legislation, the tedious procedure of conducting cross examination is not applicable under CPA and therefore prayed that the present proceedings be dismissed with cost.
6. Arguments were heard, inspite of multiple opportunities given to Respondent-2, they remained absent, we have perused through the Application and reply of the parties.
57. We are of the opinion that the District Commission, South, in its Order dated 26/03/2021 rightly dismissed the Application for Cross Examination filed by the Petitioner.
8. As this is a summary proceeding and as per CPA, Application for Cross Examination is not binding.
9. Hence we opine that Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Therefore we pass the following:
ORDER A. The Revision Petition No. 03/2021 filed by the Petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs. B. Pronounced in Open Court.
C. Proceedings in the matter stands closed.
[Adv. Mrs Varsha Bale] Officiating President [Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar] Member [Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves] Member VS 6