State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjay Rastogi vs M/S Arsh Enterprises on 12 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 208 / 2009
Sanjay Rastogi
Partner, Deepak Traders
Patel Marg, Kotdwara
District Pauri
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Arsh Enterprises
43, Gandhi Road
Dehradun
2. M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.
102B Phoenix, Bund Garden Road
Pune
......Respondents / Opposite Parties
Appellant in person
Sh. Ajay Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 12/08/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing consumer complaint No. 216 of 2008, on the premise that since the complainant has not filed any expert report to indicate any manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by him from the opposite party No. 1, he is, as such, not entitled to either have the vehicle replaced or to have the refund of the price of the vehicle on a condition of return of the vehicle to the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. The District Forum, while dilating 2 upon the evidence of the parties, also stressed on the point that the complainant has not filed any expert report so as to indicate any defect and also the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
2. Having heard the complainant - appellant in person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties - respondents, we may state at the outset that it is a fit case in which the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh according to law after brining on record an expert report, as contemplated by the provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The reason for the aforesaid decision is that the complainant rightly argued that the issue in the consumer complaint was whether the vehicle purchased was fit to run on hill roads and whether there was any manufacturing defect in it. The brochure of the vehicle (Paper No. 27) ensure that the vehicle branded as "Ape" 1.3 tonner light transportation vehicle is powered by its superior engine, effortlessly climbs gradients and hilly roads with higher operating loads even at low speeds and according to the complainant, the vehicle has not been found to be compatible to run on hill roads and as a result thereof, he could not use it for the purpose for which it had been purchased by taking loan from the financial institution. The complainant also urged that the vehicle also has other manufacturing defects and in the totality of the circumstances of the case, the District Forum instead of making above observation, was legally obliged to refer the vehicle to an appropriate test lab / workshop for test and demarcation of defect, manufacturing or otherwise in it, to make compliance of the provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Considering the peculiar aspects of the case, the District Forum fell in error in not resorting to the said provision of the 3 Act and straight away recorded a finding against the complainant that he failed to produce any expert report to prove his allegation that the vehicle allegedly suffer from manufacturing defect. At the time of the arguments before us, the complainant persuasively urged the necessity of an expert report from an appropriate test lab / workshop while assailing the approach made by the District Forum and, therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, we feel forced to set aside the order impugned and remand the case to the District Forum to decide the same afresh according to law in the light of the observations made above.
4. In view of above, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 14.10.2009 of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the order. Complainant to take steps for expert report within a period of 10 days. The District Forum is expected to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K