DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA vs Rajeev Sablok

THIS revision petition has been filed by Dinesh Chandra Gupta, (Petitioner herein) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission '') in Appeal No.217/2006 decided in favour of Rajeev Sablok and another, Respondents herein.

IN his complaint, Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum, contended that he had purchased a Maruti Car Model M-800 E II having Chassis No.2472067 and Engine No.5202-1 on 09/05/2003 for Rs.2,13,677/- from Respondent No.1 who is the authorized dealer of Respondent No.2(Maruti Udyog Ltd.). Two days after the date of purchase, Petitioner noted that there was malfunctioning of the car ''s fan and some pieces of glass from the windscreen started coming out. During the first free service on 20.06.2003, noted that in the Job Car under the heading "Vehicle History(Last Visit) " dated 02.05.2003 (i.e. prior to his having been delivered the Car on 09.05.2003), it was recorded that 12 parts of his vehicle had either been replaced or repaired. Petitioner was, therefore, convinced that he had been supplied an old Car instead of a new one and being aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and requested that the Respondents be directed to pay him the following amounts: (i) Cost of vehicle [VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED] (ii) Registration and tax feeï¿ [VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED] Rs.11,393.00 (iii) Accessoryï[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED] Rs.13,500.00 (iv) Compensation for harassmentï¿ [VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED] Rs.1,00,000.00 Total Claimï¿ [VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED] Rs.3,38,57 0.00

On being served, Respondents filed a statement denying the fact that an old vehicle has been sold to Petitioner. According to the Respondents, an absolutely new vehicle was sold to the Petitioner which is confirmed by the specific Chassis and Engine numbers which was also duly registered on 14.05.2003 with the Regional Transport Authority, Dhanbad. The Petitioner also took delivery of the vehicle without any complaint and only some minor touch-up was done to the vehicle before handing it over to the Petitioner and there was no manufacturing or any major defect in the new vehicle.

THE District Forum in the first instance dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The State Commission, before whom the Petitioner filed an appeal, directed the District Forum to hear the case and decide it on merits in accordance with law. District Forum considered the evidence led by the parties and also appointed an automobile engineer one Shri N.K.P. Singh, to look into the complaint of the Petitioner and submit a report after inspection. District Forum on the basis of evidence filed before it as also the Report of the Court Commissioner which did not support Petitioner ''s contention dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same and upheld the order of the District Forum. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows: "It is not in dispute that the appellant/complainant is still using the car, i.e. after 2 ï¿ 1/2 years of the purchase by the appellant. The main allegation raised by the appellant/complainant is that the respondent No.1/dealer, supplied an old car instead of a new car since on the job car of first servicing it was observed that in the column of "Vehicle History " certain repair work was already done on 2.5.2003, i.e. before purchase of the vehicle by the appellant. The Forum below during pendency of the complaint obtained one expert inspection Report of the vehicle carried out on 14.01.2006, by Mr.N.K.P. Singh, Commissioner appointed by it on 20.12.2005. We have very carefully gone through this report, in which it was observed that there is no evidence of any major accident and the alignment of the vehicle is correct and all mechanical units are in perfect order. Lastly it was mentioned that since the inspection has been done after more than two and half years, it is not possible to state whether the right side front head light support panel was damaged before delivery of the vehicle. The report does not in any way substantiate/corroborate the stand of the appellant that repaired vehicle was delivered to him instead of new and fresh vehicle. In this backdrop, the fact remains that the vehicle is on road and is running smoother without causing any inconvenience to the appellant. Therefore, we see no ground to interfere with the order dated 16.05.1996, passed by the District Forum, Dhanbad. "

Hence, the present revision petition. Petitioner in-person and Counsel for Respondents made oral submissions. Petitioner reiterated the fact that the vehicle had undergone extensive repairs on 02.05.2003 i.e. prior to his having purchased the said vehicle on 09.05.2003 which clearly establishes that the vehicle was either not a new vehicle or had been damaged perhaps in an accident prior to the delivery of the same to the Petitioner. The facts of the extensive repairs being conducted on the vehicle was admitted by the Respondent No.1 who had written about these defects in the Job Card of the vehicle in question, during its first free service on 20.06.2003. Further, Petitioner had spent a lot of money on purchasing a new vehicle which had already started developing some problems as stated in his complaint soon after its delivery. Even the Report of the Court Commissioner is vague because he could not conclude whether some parts of the vehicle had been damaged or not prior to its delivery to the Petitioner, since he had inspected the vehicle more than 2 ï¿ 1/2 years after its delivery. Learned Fora below failed in appreciating these facts erroneously dismissed his complaint/appeal. Counsel for Respondent on the other hand denied that an old or damaged vehicle was sold to the Petitioner. Counsel for Respondent contended that in fact, no complaint about the same was made by the Petitioner at the time of delivery of the vehicle or even thereafter. Petitioner started making these complaints when he saw the Job Card wherein the Respondents had faithfully recorded minor repairs like touch-up to the vehicle prior to its delivery and these were not due to any accident but due to minor wear and tear which can occur while transiting the vehicle from its place of production to the dealers '' shop. The Fora below had, therefore, rightly dismissed the Petitioner ''s complaint as having no merit.

WE have heard the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for Respondent and also have gone through the evidence on record. We agree with the findings of the Fora below that the Petitioner/Complainant has not been able to show any evidence that he was sold an old vehicle or that the vehicle had been extensively damaged and was repaired by Respondent No.1 before its delivery. Admittedly, there was no complaint made by the Petitioner when he had taken delivery of the said vehicle. We have perused the Job Card wherein the history of the vehicle dated 02.05.2003 has been recorded during the first free service and we note that some minor repairs and touch-up was done. The vehicle was thus not subjected to any major repairs as contended by the Petitioner before the delivery. The contention of the Counsel for Respondent that these were minor and normal defects which can occur during the transit of the vehicle from the production unit to the dealer ''s shop is, therefore, both plausible and convincing. We have also perused the Report of the Court Commissioner which does not support Petitioner ''s allegations. State Commission as a court of fact has recorded a finding that admittedly the vehicle is on the road and is running smoothly without any inconvenience to the Petitioner. Taking into view all these facts, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Fora below and therefore, uphold the same. This revision petition having no merits is dismissed. No costs.