HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED vs Ashok Narayan Pawar

COUNSEL for the parties present. Both the Fora have decided this case in favour of the complainant and against the OPs. Sh. Ashok Narayan Pawar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dhule, Maharashtra, purchased 4 Ambassador cars from the OPs - M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. Calcutta -OP -1, M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd., New Delhi - OP -2 through the Kailas Agencies (P) Ltd. -OP -3, on 12th June 1998. In one of the Cars, bearing No. MH -18 -E/400, Sh. Ashok Narayan Pawar - the Complainant was going with other officers to visit percolation tank of Abhanpur Tq.Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. Out of blue, the car suddenly caught fire, in engine. The lives of all the above said officers, including the complainant were saved. Information was given to the fire brigade. However, before the fire brigade reached there, the car was wholly burnt. The Police were informed. The Police prepared the Panchnama on the same day. The vehicle was totally burnt and reduced to ashes. The OPs were informed. The OPs were asked to replace the car which was burnt within 4 months from the date of purchase, due to manufacturing defect.

THE defense set up by the OPs was that this case entails complicated questions and the complainants should be directed to approach the Civil Court. The complainants selected the car after conducting the road test before buying the same. The car was free from defect. They denied knowledge about the incident. It is contended that the burning of the car is not covered by the terms of warranty. There is no report of the expert regarding the manufacturing defect. The car might have caught fire due to reason, other than manufacturing defect i.e. the negligence on the part of the complainant or any other employee. The relationship between the appellant and OP -3 -Kailas Agency Pvt. Ltd. is on ''principle to principle '' basis.

OPPOSITE Party No. 3 contended that there was no complaint regarding the manufacturing defect at the time of servicing of the vehicle which was carried out on 23.08.98. It was denied that there is a manufacturing defect. Both the Fora below directed the OPs to replace the car in favour of the complainant. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question was not got insured. He opined that this is mandatory U/s 130 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, to have the insurance. He explained that there was no defect in the car. No complaint was received that the car was having defect prior to this incident. He further argued that no expert report is forthcoming. He also cited a judgment of this Commission wherein a common judgment in two cases reported in Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors Limited and Anr., Revision Petition Nos. 4575 of 2012 and 4787 of 2012, decided on 7th May 2014, wherein we observed: - ''''30. Before concluding, we must mention that although, the District Forums are quick in passing the orders in favour of the consumers, irrespective of the fact, whether the case of the complainant is bolstered by cogent and plausible evidence, or not, yet the said forums never take the trouble to adhere to Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act. If District Forums follow the law, most of the problems will come to an end. If the consumer is to be helped permanently, the provisions enshrined in Section 13(1)(c) should be followed, strictly. In that event, it would be easier for the fora to winnow truth from falsehood. ''''

WE are unable to pin any value to all these arguments. Section 130 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act does not contain any direction that it is mandatory to obtain the Insurance policy. Section 130 (3) runs as follows: - ''''130(3) The owner of a motor vehicle (other than a vehicle registered under section 60), or in his absence the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle, shall, on demand by a registering authority or any other officer of the Motor Vehicles Department duly authorised in this behalf, produce the certificate of insurance of the vehicle and, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in section 56 and the permit; and if any or all of the certificates or the permit are not in his possession, he shall, within fifteen days from the date of demand, submit photo copies of the same, duly attested in person or send the same by registered post to the officer who demanded it.

Explanation. -For the purposes of this sub -section, ''''certificate '''' of insurance '''' means the certificate issued under sub -section (3) of section 147.] ''''

MOREOVER , this was a vehicle meant for the Government department. The complainant has filed a notification dated 14.11.1998, which was sent to the petitioner wherein the following reference was made: - ''''As you have suggested the proper remedy for settlement of our claim from Insurance company but vide Govt. of Maharashtra, Irrigatioon Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ''s circular No. Mah.: -1092/766/18/97/Mech. Dated 3 -9 -97 that the said car was not insured by this office (copy enclosed). ''''

SECONDLY , the facts of this case speak for themselves. The incident took place after 4 months '' after the purchase of the car. It travelled only upto 14 kms. The vehicle was under warranty in those days. The record also reveals that the complainant had sent a number of reminders to OPs to come to the spot to find out what had happened to their car. Counsel for the petitioners/OPs contended that there was no need to go there because the car had been reduced to ashes. The arguments urged by the counsel for the petitioner are contradictory. On the one hand, he submits that no expert ''s evidence was filed, on the other hand he submits that they did not send the expert because the vehicle was reduced to ashes. Counsel for the OPs contended that there was no use to send the expert mechanic at that stage. This fact also shows negligence on the part of the petitioner. On the one hand they say that their firm is a prestigious one and on the other hand they did not care a fig for the burnt vehicle. The State Commission was pleased to note: - ''''They ought to have sent their mechanic for inspection of the car immediately after the incident when they were informed. Appellants who are manufacturers are supposed to have special knowledge about the mechanism in the car and its engine. Their mechanic could have brought on record the exact cause of catching fire in the engine when car was in motion. The complainant cannot be blamed for not filing report of expert. The ratio in the cited cases by appellant is not helpful to the appellant in the fact and circumstances of the case. In the instant case appellants were intimated immediately about the incident. Not only that police station and fire brigade were also intimated and car was burnt to ashes. There was no opportunity for the complainant to get examined the car for finding the manufacturing defect regarding fire. The manufacturer can be said to have special knowledge about mechanism in the car. Therefore their mechanic ought to have visited the spot and ought to have given opinion about catching of fire in the engine ''''.

THE court has to take a down to earth view. There can be no other reason except of manufacturing defect in burning of a new brand car. Facts are stubborn things. Law is the backbone which keeps the man erect.

THE Revision Petition is lame of strength and therefore, the same is dismissed. The original opposite parties are directed to provide a new car to the complainant. In case they have stopped manufacturing this car, in that eventuality, they will pay the current price of the car, alongwith 9% interest from the date of incident, till its realization. If they choose to give him new car, they are also liable to pay compensation in the shape of interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of incident, till its realization, to the complainant. The order of this Commission be complied with, within a period of 45 days, from the receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, after the expiry of 45 days '', the above said interest in both the amounts, stand enhanced to 12% p.a.