Mahindra AND Mahindra Ltd. vs VASANTRAO DAGAJI PATIL

THERE is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal which has not been explained. In fact, there is no prayer seeking condonation of delay. No application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. On merit also we do not find appellant has any case.

COMPLAINANT-respondent No. 1 herein purchased a jeep manufactured by the appellant through its dealer-respondent No. 2 herein. vehicle gave trouble to the complainant from the very start. It would be interesting to reproduce the letter of the appellant dated 10.9.1991 which finds mention in the impugned order of the State Commission. It reads as under : "This has further reference to our Bombny office letter SHQ/KBS/N/10/2058 dated 13.8.1991 regarding your jeep. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the undersigned at our dealer''s workshop at Jalgaon. Unfortunately I was not able to contact you personally, since you were outstation. However, we are pleased to inform you that we are immediately arranging for the chassis frame replacement on your vehicle under warranty. The other complaints pointed out by you on body, seats, paint, etc. also will be done to your entire satisfaction. By a copy of this letter, we are advising our dealer to take the further immediate action. Hence kindly get in touch with them. Thanking you and assuring you of our best co-operation always, we remain. Your faithfully, For Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Sd/ Sanjay Jadhav Service Engineer."

There is a clear admission on the part of the appellant that the vehicle was defective. It was new vehicle which had all these defects and for removal of the defects vehicle was kept for four months by the appellant and the dealer for removal of the defects. It is not difficult to imagine the agony of the consumer who buys a new jeep and has to undergo all these troubles.

Complaining deficiency in service complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission. It was held, considering the circumstances of the case that it was a fit case where compensation should have been awarded to the complainant. State Commission did not direct for supply of new vehicle. It granted compenation of Rs. 50,000/- which was directed to be paid within 8 weeks from the date of the order and in default it was to carry interest @ 18% per annum. Claim of the complainant for refund of the total cost of the vehicle did not find favour with the State Commission.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission appellant-manufacturer has come before us. We do not think that there was any justification for the appellant to challenge the order of the State Commission on any ground whatsoever. It is clear case where there has been deficiency in service as the new vehicle was having acute defects and did not give proper service to the complainant. For four months vehicle was with the appellant and its dealer which deprived the complainant of the use of the vehicle. State Commission, in our view, rightly granted compensation. We do not think compensation granted is on the higher side. It is quite reasonable in the circumstances of the case. There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed on the ground of delay and also on merit. Since nobody appears for the respondent there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.