AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Complainant, Jivrajbhai Bhikabhai Kakadia purchased a jeep Bolero XL on 21.06.2004 manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.- the OP-2 Within 5 months complainant faced some defects in his vehicle, on 03.02.2003 the OP-2 changed the engine to new one. Thereafter, despite availing timely services defects persisted, Op charged for services and for changed the parts. On 07.07.2007, the expert notified defects in vehicle. Due to repeated defects the Complainant incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards travel by another vehicle. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed a complaint before District Forum Bharuch-Gujarat
The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay Rs.22,105/- from 13.05.2007 @ of 7.5% interest joint and severally Rs.3,000/- costs & Rs.3,000/- for mental agony. Subsequently, the first appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed by the State Commission, Gujrat. Hence, the complainant filed this revision.
Heard both the parties. The complainant/petitioner argued in person that the manufacturing defects in the vehicle were propped within short span after purchase. The engine was replaced, but the problems persisted, hence he suffered financial losses also. The counsel for OP vehemently argued that, the complainant purchased vehicle on 21.04.2004, thereof that the vehicle ran for 40,000 kms during 22 months, therefore complainant used it maximum, it was used for commercial purpose. The complainant had not approached the forum with clean hands, seeking for a new vehicle in lieu of old one, after use of 22 months is not tenable. The warranty period was for one year. As per section 13 of CP Act complainant should have produced the lab report from company''s authorised mechanic.
I have perused the Warranty card, job cards and details of repairs done by OP. Accordingly, the warranty was lapsed after one year, the OP gave proper services during warranty period. The complainant had not proved that it was a manufacturing defect, by cogent evidence from authorised expert or the vehicle was not tested before the Government Laboratory as per Section 13(1) c of Cosumer Protection Act 1986. The said vehicles ran about 71,045 kms. Hence, there was no manufacturing defect. Both the fora have considered those issues and awarded proper compensation. Therefore, the present Revision Petition is meritless and hence, dismissed. No order as to costs.