State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harrisons Automobiles, Gt Road, Panipa ... vs 1.Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Singh Son Of Sh. ... on 14 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 2 of 2006 Date of Institution: 02.01.2006 Date of Decision: 14.08.2012 Harrisons Automobiles, GT Road, Panipa through its Manager, Panipat. Appellant (OP-1) Versus 1. Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Singh son of Sh. Dariya Singh, resident of village Diwana, now residing at House No.792-A, c/o M/s Rajbir Contractor, Sector-11, 12, Phase-I, HUDA, Panipat. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its M.D. Respondent (OP-2) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: None for appellant. None for respondents (Exparte vide orer dated 23.02.2011). O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
Case called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of the appellant though the case is fixed for arguments. Respondents are already exparte vide order dated 23.02.2011. It is already 1.00 P.M. This appeal relates to the year 2006. As per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaints as well as the appeals are to be decided within the prescribed period. Thus, the non-cooperative attitude of the parties is against the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely and therefore we proceed to decide the same after going through the case file.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat whereby the opposite parties (appellant as well as respondent No.2 herein) have been held deficient in service and involved in unfair trade practice for selling/supplying a car make Maruti Versa DX, having manufacturing defect and issued the following directions:
..we direct the respondents jointly and severally to replace the vehicle in question with new one. The respondents are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment together with Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. The present complaint is accepted accordingly. The compliance of this order shall be made by the Ops jointly and severally, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The case of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that he had purchased a car make Maruti Versa DX from the opposite party No.1 on 11.07.2002, manufactured by opposite party No.2. The warranty of the car was for two years. According to the complainant his car developed defect on 15.7.2002 when he alongwith his relatives were traveling. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of the opposite party and remained there w.e.f. 15.7.2002 to 18.7.2002. According to the complainant, the Oil Meter and Oil Tank of the car were replaced and engine as well as gear box was repaired. Again the defect developed in the car and the same was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No.1 on 27.8.2002 where it was repaired vide job card No.020805. Complainant alleged that the car started wearing out speedily and upon checking by the mechanic of the opposite party No.1 it was found that there was manufacturing defect in the shocker due to which the tyres of the car damaged. Complainant wrote to Delhi Tyres about the problem of the tyres. The opposite party No.1 changed only one driver side shocker and assured that the tyres of the car would be got changed from the authorised dealer. Complainant alleged that due to the manufacturing defect in the car, he was facing great problem and thus by filing complaint before the District Forum sought direction to the opposite parties to replace his car with a new one or to pay rupees five lacs and compensation of rupees ten lacs.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. It was denied that the complainant had informed the opposite party No.1 on 15.7.2002 about the defect in his car, rather, the complainant had brought his car to the workshop of the opposite party No.1 on 24.7.2002 after running his car for 1254 Kms. At that time, it was revealed that the complainant got fitted LPG Gas kit in the vehicle from outside and the vehicle loom were founded cut to make unauthorized connection, which resulted in malfunctioning of electronic system/components. It was denied that the car was kept by the opposite party No.1 w.e.f. 15.7.2002 to 18.7.2002 and therefore the question of changing Oil meter and Oil tank as well as repair of gear box and engine does not arise. In fact the complainant had brought his car on 27.8.2002 for second service and at that time the rear shocker of the car was replaced which was under warranty. Third service of the car was got done on 8.10.2002 and for next service the vehicle was brought by the complainant on 31.10.2002 which was a paid service. Every time the complainant was fully satisfied with the service of his car and in token of which he had signed the Job Cards. Denying any kind of manufacturing defect in the car, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 has come up in appeal.
Since none has appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue the case, we ourselves have perused the grounds of appeal and gone through the case file.
Though the complainant has taken the plea that he had brought his car to the opposite party No.1 on 15.7.2002 but he failed to produce any documentary evidence in this regard. From the record it is established that the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No.1 for the first time on 24.7.2002 and as per history of the vehicle, no demanded repair in respect of engine or gearbox of the car was done at that time. It has also not been proved by the complainant that the vehicle was kept in the workshop of the opposite party No.1 w.e.f. 15.7.2002 to 18.7.2002. It has come on the record that the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No.1 for service of the vehicle on 08.08.2002 at the mileage of 3220 Kms, on 13.08.2002 at a mileage of 3583 Kms, on 27.08.2002 to avail second free service at 5342, 08.10.2002 at 10624 Kms, on 31.10.2002 for paid service at 15709 Kms, on 25.11.2002 at 18959 Kms and on 29.12.2003 at 37160 Kms when no demanded repair with regard to gear box or alleged major defect in engine was made. Complainant has not led any cogent and convincing evidence by way of expert opinion to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. As and when the complainant took his car to the workshop of the opposite party No.1, the same was repaired/serviced to his entire satisfaction. The repairable defect in the vehicle cannot be termed as a manufacturing defect. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case, hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.6100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 14.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member