AMARNATH SINGH vs MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA

THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra passed in Complaint No. 220 of 1991 by which the complaint was dismissed.

ACCORDING to the allegations of the complainant, he purchased a new Mahindra Jeep from the local dealer respondent No. 2 herein, M/s. Provincial Automobiles Ltd., Nagpur, (for short the dealer) of Mahindra jeep manufactured by respondent No. 1 herein, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. These respondents were arrayed as opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the complaint. The jeep was purchased on 24th February, 1989 for a consideration of Rs.1,23,710/-. The complainant had purchased the jeep for his private and family use. According to the complainant the said vehicle did not function properly and required frequent repairs after covering about 4 to 4.5 thousand kilometers. However, he got it repaired from the local mechanic as there was no authorised repair shop of opposite party No. 1 at Gondia. The complainant alleged that the vehicle was defective and several parts, namely clutch plate, pressure plate, bearings, battery, tie rod were replaced within a short time. After the jeep had run about 40,000 kms. major trouble was found, namely, excess fuel consumption. The complainant got the engine of the jeep opened and examined in the garage of the local expert mechanic at Gondia on 29th July, 1991. It was found that the engine was of a tractor and its bearings, crank shaft and other parts were of sub-standard size. Moreover, the engine number of the jeep was "DM 45372A" and not "DM 45392" as mentioned in the delivery memo and bill and other documents issued by the dealer at the time of the sale of the vehicle. The service engineer of the manufacturer after examining the engine told the complainant that the suffix "A" indicates that all undersize parts have been used in the engine. However, this fact was not disclosed to the complainant at the time of sale. The representative of the opposite parties visited Gondia on 5th August, 1991 and after inspecting the subject engine informed the complainant that fitment of 0.1Q" undersize parts i.e. crank shaft, bearings etc. to some engines are common practice in the automobile industry and such engines are considered to be standard ones as replacement parts are available. The same view was expressed by the General Manager (Service) of the manufacturer in his letter dated 17th August, 1991, but, however, further stated that, as a special case arrangements were being made to supply standard size crank shaft, bearings etc. to the complainant and engine would be rebuilt free of cost. Accordingly, on 20th September, 1991 the opposite parties i.e., respondents herein sent another crank shaft, etc. to the local mechanic but it could not be fitted as it was not of proper size. The respondents took away the original crank shaft and promised to sent another one in its place but failed to do so. Meanwhile, the complainant was deprived of the use of the vehicle for treatment of his ailing wife and other family members* Again the opposite parties sent another crank shaft, but it was also of under size and could not be fitted. All the time the vehicle was lying with the engine opened in the workshop. In spite of repeated requests the opposite parties failed to commission the engine and they did not handover the standard size parts to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint on 16th October, 1991, claiming Rs. 24,000/- towards the damages, Rs. 300/- per day towards loss and Rs. 20,000/- further loss = total Rs. 2,65,000/-. On being noticed the opposite parties contested the complaint. Opposite Party No. 1 raised a preliminary objection to the effact that the entire cause of action had arisen in Madhya Pradesh beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Maharashtra State Commission. However, this objection does not appear to have been pressed before the State Commission as the dealer, who had supplied the jeep, has his office at Nagpur, though the vehicle was supplied by he dealer from its branch in Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh. It was also pleaded that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose, but it appears that the State Commission did not decide this point also as they were of the opinion that the complainant had failed to establish that the jeep sold to him was defective and also failed to prove that the post-sale service was defective and, therefore, the complaint must fail on that ground and it was not necessary for them to give a finding on the other preliminary points about the maintainability of the complaint. On merits, the manufacturer (i.e., respondent No. 1 herein) pleaded that at the time of delivery the vehicle was in perfect condition. It was received by the complainant with full satisfaction and he had issued the satisfaction note in respect of the .condition of the vehicle. The complainant never made any complaint in respect of the vehicle during the period of warranty meaning thereby that there was no problem with the vehicle during that period. The complainant also committed grave mistake by allowing an inexperienced, unqualified mechanic to deal with the engine after it had run half a lac kilometers. The answering opposite party has no idea as to what the said mechanic did after opening the engine. In such circumstances, the manufacturer is not responsible for any alleged complaint being made for the first time after the vehicle had run 52,637 kms. Even after filing the complaint the complainant never informed the answering opposite party about the alleged defects and excess consumption of fuel and oil, etc. As the complainant had got the vehicle repaired by the local mechanics who are not competent and had no knowledge of technical know how of the engine, therefore, there is every apprehension that it was on account of that the engine developed problems which reflected in excess fuel and oil consumption etc. Even if it is presumed that the allegation is correct the replying opposite party cannot be held responsible since the complainant deliberately ignored to get the defects rectified by them through their authorised service station, and, therefore, they cannot be held responsible for any loss or damage to the complainant. It was denied that the engine was of a tractor. It was further pleaded that the vehicle could not be said to be sub-standard merely because the crank shaft was under sized to the extent .010" equal to 1/1000 thousand of an inch. It cannot be called defective or sub-standard in any sense of the word. It is a normal phenomenon with all the major automobile manufacturers to use undersized crank shaft. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any certificate in proof of his allegations that the crank shaft was sub-standard. The grievance of the complainant that the under sized crank shaft goes for 50,000 kms to 1 lac kms. is a hypothecation, presumption or just a hearsay and is not correct at all. The same will have full life as any standard sized one. It is pertinent to note that there was no grievance made by the complainant to the opposite parties in that behalf at any stage earlier. It was only after a long delay and after the engine has been dismantled by uauthorised persons when the matter was referred to them and the same was attended to by the opposite parties and the complainant was advised that on account of poor maintenance the alleged shortcomings had cropped up. The complainant was advised to properly maintain the vehicle in order to avoid such minor faults. Had the complainant adhered to periodic maintenance schedule, quality of oil and filter mentioned in the operation manual the vehicle would have been free from all faults. It is solely because of the complainant''s negligence that the alleged faults have cropped up. There is no difference between a tractor engine and an engine used in a jeep. A new crank shaft of standard size had since been delivered to the complainant though they were not bound to do so, but it was done as a special case. The other allegations of the complainant were also denied.

THE opposite party No. 2 i.e. the dealer, has also filed a counter. According to them the vehicle was delivered in good condition. Free services were rendered to the vehicle by them and the minor defects which were pointed out were rectified free of cost except the additional work not covered under the conditions of warranty and for that additional work the complainant was charged. It was also stated that the first complaint was received from the complainant on 30th July, 1991 and it was properly attended to. It was also pleaded that according to the instructions of the opposite party No. 1 the answering opposite party delivered some parts to the complainant and the complainant gave a note of satisfaction dated the 20th September, 1991. The other allegations were also denied.

SINCE the allegations contained in the complaint were concerning "defective goods" the State Commission referred the jeep in question to seek the opinion of the District Transport Officer, Gondia, who is the Government authority locally available. The Regional Transport Officer, Gondia, examined the vehicle on 20th August, 1992 in the presence of both the parties and submitted his report to the Commission. It is stated in the report that there is no difference in the tractor engine and a jeep engine except in adjustment as per requirement. It was further stated that the engine number punching is of the jeep engine and the print was attached with report. It was also stated that the block of engine is the same as of a jeep engine and the work suffix VA'' indicates undersized parts fitted in the engine. In view of the clarification given by the manufacturers and also from the literature produced before the State Commission that it is a normal practice in the automobile industry of fitting under-sized parts, the State Commission was of the view that the manufacturing defects alleged by the complainant in the jeep in question were not established. The State Commission further held that during the warranty period the opposite party was required to render free service at their authorised service station, but, as there was no such service station at Gondia, the complainant got the jeep repaired through local mechanics and under such circumstances the manufacturer or the dealer cannot be held liable for breach of warranty condition. In view of the above findings the State Commission dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has filed the present appeal.

THE main contention of the appellant is that the jeep was fitted with under sized crank shaft etc. After consideration of the contentions of the opposite parties and the literature which was produced before the State Commission and has also been filed before this Commission by the Respondent herein it appears that it is the normal practice in the automobile industry of fitting under-sized parts and it does not constitute a manufacturing defect. Moreover, the grievance of the complainant does not exist now because the alleged defective part had been replaced with the crank shaft of proper size. The complainant has not led any evidence to show that on account of the fitting of the under-sized parts he could not use the vehicle in a useful manner. It is clear from the evidence that the vehicle has covered more than 60 thousand kilometers. In fact, the opposite parties have produced the documents on the file that the complainant was using the jeep as a taxi and its driver was challenged on that account

IT may, however, he mentioned here that the opposite parties have filed the report of the Automotive Research Association of India dated the 29th June, 1992 which reads as follows: "In ARAI''s opinion use of undersize crankshaft with undersize bearing is not considered as defect on automotive engines. Based on the manufacturing process for crankshaft, the gradations are done and is reported in the specification sheet. In the supply of engine, this gradations are stamped on the crankshaft or different part number other than standard engine is followed. These practices are followed in some of the major automotive industry. These engines are considered standard because replacement parts of the correct size are supplied."

The other grievance of the complaint is that tractor engine had been fitted in the jeep. As noticed above, there is no difference between a tractor engine and a jeep engine except of a few adjustments.

HENCE the allegation of the complainant that by use of the undersize crank shaft the jeep has manufacturing defects has no legs to stand. In the appeal memo the complainant had alleged that the opposite parties are guilty of unfair trade practice by supplying sub-standard vehicle in place of standard vehicle by obtaining the full price of vehicle. As already noticed the use of under-sized parts in a vehicle cannot be said to be a defect in the vehicle and the use of such parts is a normal phenomenon in automobile industry.

THE other grievance of the complainant is that the jeep remained in the garage in open condition with the mechanic since 29th July, 1991 till it was managed to be sent to the residence of the complainant on 12th November, 1991. It was the complainant''s own fault that he got the jeep engine opened merely on the ground that it was fitted with an under-sized crank shaft, etc. which as discussed above, is not a manufacturing defect. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records we are of opinion that the findings of the State Commission are based on a correct appraisal of the evidence and do not call for any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We make on order as to costs.