Mahindra AND Mahindra Ltd. vs B.G. THAKURDESAI

-THIS is an appeal against the order dated 5.10.1991 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Bombay in Complaint No. 17 of 1991. The complaint was filed by the present Respondent No. 1 Mr. B.G. Thakurdesal against the present Appellant and present Respondent No. 2 Mr. Dadajee Dhackjee. The Appellant is the Manufacturer of motor vehicle i.e. ''MM 540 Jeep'' while Respondent No. 2 is their Dealer. The Complainant purchased a MM 540 Jeep from Respondent No. 2 on 13th November, 1990 against payment of Rs. 2,11,042/- vide receipt dated 10th November, 1990 issued by the Dealer. According to the Complainant the, vehicle had some electrical fault on account of which bulbs started getting burnt after one or two days. The Dealer carried out some repairs. In the last week of November, 1990 the Complainant found that the vehicle had started giving noise. On checking it was found that the engine oil level had gone below danger mark due to excessive consumption of the engine oil by the engine of the vehicle. The vehicle was thereafter taken to the Dealer. After two days the Complainant received intimation on telephone that the vehicle had been repaired. The Complainant took delivery of the vehicle. He was asked by the Engineer of the Dealer to bring it back for joint inspection after trial running of the vehicle for 600 to 700 kilometers. On 14th December, 1990 the vehicle was again taken to the Dealer. On inspection it was again found that there was excessive engine oil consumption. The Complainant left the vehicle with the Dealer with a request to replace the same. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote a couple of letters to the Dealer as well as to the Manufacturer but did not receive any reply. On 21st January, 1991 he received a reply from the Dealer intimating the fact of changing the complete engine assembly of the said vehicle and he was asked to take the delivery. The Complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle apprehending that it might again start giving trouble. He, however, filed a complaint before the State Commission in which he claimed about replacement of the old vehicle by new vehicle plus Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation or in the alternative refund of the price.

THE case of the Opposite Party was that the engine had started giving noise as the Complainant did not check the level of engine oil and the level went below the danger mark. It was further pleaded that the engine was changed as a special case and as a matter of goodwill. The State Commission came to the opinion that if the engine had no defect. There was no reason for the Opposite Party to replace the same and the replacement of the engine was indicative of the fact that it had defect in its manufacturing. The State Commission also found that the Complainant had real apprehension that the defective motor vehicle was supplied to him by the Opposite Party. In view of the above findings, the State Commission ordered the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,11,042/- to the Complainant towards the price of the Jeep with interest @ 16.5% per annum from 10th November, 1990 till payment. The Opposite Parties were allowed to take back the Jeep in question. The claim of the Complainant for compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh was, however, rejected as there was no convincing evidence on the point of loss of business of the Complainant or mental torture to him.

Feeling aggrieved of the above order. The Manufacturer has come before us in appeal and it was argued on their behalf that though it is not admitted that there was manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle supplied to the Complainant but as it had started giving trouble, therefore, as a special case and as a matter of goodwill the engine was replaced meaning thereby that the defect in the goods sold to the Complainant has since been removed. He also referred Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 according to which provision, a Forum constituted under the Act can order removal of the defect in the goods sold to a consumer. Counsel of the Appellant argued that when the defect has been removed. The State Commission ought not to have ordered the refund of the price of the vehicle to the Complainant as no other manufacturing defect exists in the vehicle.

WE are of the opinion that the above argument of the party has force. When the engine of the vehicle which had started giving trouble to the Complainant has since been replaced and no other defect is being pointed out in the vehicle we fail to understand why the Complainant is not prepared to take back the vehicle in question after it has been duly repaired. His apprehension that a defective vehicle has been supplied to him has no basis because the defect no longer exists in the vehicle. He was offered that vehicle as early as 21st January, 1991. The Complainant ought to have taken delivery of the vehicle after new engine assembly had been installed in the vehicle and ought to have run the vehicle to find out if any defect remained in the vehicle. At the time the offer for taking back the vehicle was made in January 1991, the vehicle must be still in the warranty period because it was purchased only in the middle of November, 1990. If any defect was found the Complainant could have brought it to the notice of the Dealer. If a consumer purchases some machinery and some part of it is found having manufacturing defect and that part can be replaced then it will be very prejudicial to the interest of the Manufacturer if he is asked to replace the whole machinery without sufficient cause. Hence we are of the opinion that in the present case the State Commission was not justified in ordering the Opposite Parties to refund the price of the vehicle to the consumer i.e. Complainant when the Complainant himself had refused to take delivery of the vehicle after it had been repaired. However, we find that the Complainant is entitled to some compensation as he had spent huge amount in the purchase of the vehicle and had to remain without its use for more than a month. During this period the Complainant must have suffered mental distress and agony. It is clear from the record that the Complainant had purchased this vehicle after obtaining loan from a bank and he was to pay interest to the bank on the loan. We are of the opinion that Rs. 5,000/- will be sufficient compensation to the Complainant on this account.

AS a result of the above discussion we accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order and order that Opposite Parties in the Complaint will deliver the vehicle to the complainant without any further charges and also pay jointly and severally Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as the costs. Appeal accepted.