CARGO MOTORS (GUJRAT) LTD. vs SOLACE EXPORTERS

BOTH these appeals arise from order dated 15th April, 2000 rendered by the learned Baroda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Case No. 31/98. Impugned order reads as under: "Applicant''s complaint is allowed. The opponents are ordered to pay Rs. 96,713/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f. the date of complaint i.e., 19th January, 1998 till the realization of the amount. The opponents are further ordered to bear their own cost and to pay Rs. 1,500/- to the applicant, as the cost of this proceeding. Opponents are ordered to pay the aforesaid amount to the applicant, within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the applicant shall be at liberty to recover the same from the person and property of all the three opponents, jointly and severally."

WHEN both these appeals came up for hearing no one remained present for the appellants. Learned representative for the complainant, respondent herein, is present. We have heard him. On earlier occasions also absence of the appellants/appellants'' learned Advocates in both the appeals came to be recorded. We have gone through the impugned order. We have gone through the grounds taken in the respective appeals. It would appear that the complainants, Solace Exporters and Solace Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (MKTG) filed the complaint before the learned Forum against opponent No. 1-Esanda Finanz, opponent No. 2-Cargo Motors (Gujarat) Ltd. and opponent No. 3-Maruti Udyog Ltd. on the ground that the car in question supplied to the complainant was defective inasmuch as the quality of paint was defective, tyres were defective and ultimately as per the facts set out in the impugned order it was noticed that the complainant was given second hand car by the dealer-original opponent No. 2-Cargo Motors (Gujarat) Ltd. No one appeared before the learned Forum on behalf of original opponent No. 2 Cargo Motors (Gujarat) Ltd. and original opponent No. 3-Maruti Udyog Ltd. Learned Advocate for the first opponent Esanda Finanz appeared and filed objections before the learned Forum that the grievance which was made by the complainant was not true, that the complainant had taken delivery of the car in question after full satisfaction and the car was under use by the complainant. Learned Forum considered the material placed on record and came to the conclusion that the car was purchased on 8th August, 1997 and by letter dated 29th August, 1997 attention of the opponent No. 1 was drawn that after the delivery of the car, paint started pealing off and started rusting and that condition of the tyres was also not upto the mark. It was also brought to the notice of the opponent No. 1 that the date of manufacturing though stated as August, 1997 the service card revealed that the first service was done on 15th May, 1997. Number of letters were placed on the record by the complainant. Learned Forum proceeded to consider the matter on evidence and found that it was not merely suspicion on the part of the complainant about supply of old car to the complainant but the complainant''s grievance was supported by the evidence placed on record. Even the representative of the opponents also admitted that there were defects in the car in question, in the letter dated 24th October, 1997. Taking the question of relief to be granted to the complainant learned Forum observed that the first opponent received back the car in question on behalf of opponent Nos. 2 and 3, but the same was not replaced. Learned Forum, therefore, found that the opponents were liable to refund the amount recovered by the first opponent from the complainant.

On going through the memorandum of appeal in both these appeals it would appear that the concerned appellants had merely set out the grounds saying that the findings of the learned Forum are erroneous. However, they have not been able to come out with evidence as to how the findings are not met with the evidence which had been discussed by the learned Forum. They have also not cared to remain present before this Commission for canvassing their case if any. It is no doubt true that the first opponent Esanda Finanz (appellant in Appeal No. 110/2000) is not the dealer and only financier, but it had taken back the delivery of the car and, therefore, it was not entitled to retain the amount paid by the complainant. The second opponent-Cargo Motors (Gujarat) Ltd. (appellant in Appeal No. 530/2001), although dealer, made representation to the complainant that a new car was being sold to the complainant. Thus the second opponent clearly displayed unfair trade practice in respect of the transaction in question. The causes presented by the complainant had arisen quite within the period of warranty. Besides, there is also deficiency in respect of the colour and tyres of the car which has been dealt with by the learned Forum.

BEARING in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case we do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the learned Forum. In the result, following order is passed: Both these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.