MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED vs MORWAL BROTHER PRIVATE LIMITED

THIS appeal arises from order dated 18.9.2000 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad in Case No. 152 of 1998 directing the opponents to replace the jeep in question with fresh warranty and in the alternative to pay Rs. 3,26,900 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 14.10.1997 till payment and cost quantified at Rs. 1,000.

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. WE have gone through the impugned order. It would appear that the complainant Morwal Brothers Private Limited purchased the jeep in question manufactured by opponent No. 1 company through opponent No. 2 Agency for consideration of Rs. 3,26,900 on 14.10.1997. The complainant made grievance about the working of the jeep, more particularly defect in the engine on 15.12.1997. Opponent No. 2 attended to the grievance of the complainant and replaced the cylinder of the engine and returned the vehicle to the complainant. It was the case of the complainant that opponent No. 2 assured that there would not be any further defect in the jeep in question. Yet, in May 1998, it gave out difficulties with regard to transmission. This was also within the warranty period. The complainant handed over the jeep to opponent No. 2 for repairs. Correspondence ensued between the parties with regard to the defect in the jeep in question. It was alleged by the complainant that opponents admitted the defect/difficulties with regard to the engine and transmission in the jeep. The complainant had purchased the jeep for business as builder and contractor and for such business the jeep was of much less utility on account of the aforesaid defects. The complainant called upon the opponents to replace the jeep or pay the consideration back to the complainant. As the opponents did not accept the say of the complainant for replacement of the jeep or return of consideration, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the learned Forum. The opponents though appeared before the learned Forum, did not file any reply. The learned Forum went through the material placed on record and passed the impugned order holding that the vehicle in question (jeep) was defective and there was also deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.

It has first been submitted on behalf of the opponents that admittedly the complainant purchased the jeep in question for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant cannot be said to be a ''consumer'' in the eye of law. Reference in this connection has been made some of the decisions on the point. In Marshal Industries Proprietorship Concern v. The Hindustan Motors Ltd. & Anr., II (1994) CPJ 91 (NC)=First Appeal No. 476 of 1992 decided on 11.5.1994, the car was purchased for commercial purpose and the National Commission upheld the contention that the complainant could not be said to be a consumer within the meaning of the term contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1995 (2) CPR 11, the Apex Court held that the complaint filed by the complainant who purchased a Universal Turning Central Machine could not be maintained as the complainant could not be said to be a consumer in the eye of law as the machine was purchased for commercial purpose. Once again, in Cheema Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh, VI (1998) SLT 20=(1997) 1 SCC 131, it was held that where a machine (Brickman) was purchased for brick moulding, brick-drying and brick-burning, the complainant was required to prove that he and his family members were alone using the machine for producing bricks and earning livelihood failing which the complaint would be hit by definition contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That being the question of fact requiring evidence, the matter was remitted to the Forum for recording of evidence of the parties.

IN the present case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant, a private limited company, purchased the jeep in question for commercial purpose. Hence, the complainant could not be said to be a consumer in the eye of law insofar as the purchase of the vehicle was concerned and insofar as the grievance with regard to the vehicle being defective in its entirety was concerned. However, as per the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prior to 15.3.2003 when it was amended, the complainant was considered to be a consumer for the purpose of rendition of service even if the purchase was for commercial purpose. IN the present case, the jeep in question was found to have developed some or other defect during the warranty period. The learned Forum has noted about the incidents when the jeep was handed over to opponent No. 2 for rectification of the defects. It is not in dispute that on such occasions, the work of rectification of defects was attended to by opponent No. 2. The xerox copy of the job card has been produced in appeal although that ought to have been done by filing reply before the learned Forum. We also, therefore, take into consideration the amount spent by the complainant during the period of warranty when the defects recurred. It is not in dispute that on the 2nd occasion the jeep was required to be retained for a period of around one month and the complainant had to face a great deal of hardship in its business. The learned Advocate for the opponent fairly concedes that although alternative jeep was provided on the first occasion, no alternative jeep was provided on the second occasion. Hence, there was clearly deficiency in service with regard to rendition of service during the warranty period. Having gone through the respective bills as also the correspondence that ensued between the parties, we are of the opinion that the opponents are liable to pay reasonable compensation with regard to the amount spent during the warranty period and secondly with regard to delay caused in repairing of the jeep on the 2nd occasion (May 1998). According to the particulars of the bills which have been supplied by the learned Advocate for the complainant, the complainant was required to spend around Rs. 6,000 for the free services rendered by opponent No. 2 to the jeep in question. We propose to award lump sum compensation for the deficiency in service in the sum of Rs. 10,000 which would include the amount spent by the complainant for the repairing of the jeep during the warranty period. We also propose to maintain the order of cost passed by the learned Forum. It may be noted that this matter is finally disposed of at the appellate stage by taking into consideration the documents submitted by the learned Advocates with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

IN view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we pass following order: ORDER Impugned order dated 18.9.2000 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad in Case No. 152 of 1998 is hereby set aside. INstead, the opponents are directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000 (lumpsum) with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment and cost quantified at Rs. 1,000. Opponents are stated to have deposited Rs. 2,00,000 in this Commission. Office to verify the amount deposited and pay Rs. 11,000 from the said amount deposited by the 1st opponent Mahindra & Mahindra Limited as stated above any pay balance amount with interest, if any, to the said opponents by A/c. Payee cheque. The amount stated to have been deposited by the original opponent No. 2 Silvassa Agencies and Services Pvt. Ltd. shall be verified and returned to the said 2nd opponent with interest, if any, by A/c. Payee cheque. IN case original opponent No. 1 Mahindra & Mahindra is found not to have deposited any amount, the complainant shall be paid from the amount stated to have been deposited by opponent No. 2. This appeal is accordingly disposed of, with no further order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.