MANOHAR LAL vs Raj Motors, Authorised Seller

THE present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ''State Commission '') in First Appeal No. 725/2009, wherein the State Commission dismissed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ''District Forum '').

THE relevant facts in brief about this revision are these. On 7.6.1995 the Complainant Manohar Lal paid Rs.102973/ - to Raj Motors, the OP -1 for purchase of a tempo. He took delivery of the vehicle on 08.08.1995, with the guarantee certificate for replacement of vehicle and a provision for free service till 3 months or 6,000 kms. As per complainant, the said vehicle had gone out of order within 7 days of purchase and it was informed to the OP -1, but no step was taken for its repair or replacing the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant compelled to pay interest on loan and suffered loss of Rs.6,000/ - income per month. The complainant approached the District Forum and prayed for a relief of new vehicle in lieu of old one or refund of Rs.1,02,973/ - plus award for damages so occurred due to loss of employment and legal expenses. The District Forum, Camp Jaipur allowed the complaint and ordered the OPs to repay Rs.1,02,973/ - along with the interest @ 6%, in lieu of vehicle due to manufacturing defect in tempo and Rs.5,000/ - towards compensation and Rs.2,000/ - towards the legal expenses.

THE OP -2 filed the first appeal in the State Commission, being aggrieved by the order of District Forum. The State commission set aside the order of District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

AGAINST the impugned order of state commission, the petitioner/complainant files this revision. We have heard the counsel of the parties. The counsel for the complainant argued that, the vehicle was purchased from the authorized dealer of company at Jaipur but thereafter within 2 months it was closed, hence the company directed the complainant that he must get his tempo repaired by taking it to Bharatpur. The OP turned a deaf ear to the several letters of queries about who would bear the expenditure of taking vehicle to Bharatpur. Hence, the complainant could not take his vehicle to Bharatpur and his tempo could not be repaired. The vehicle sold to the Complainant was not of good quality. He further contended that the mechanic Chetan who has worked for last 25 years as a mechanic had given an affidavit that he checked the said Tempo sitara which showed different fittings like the tube of fiat car, axel of ambassador car, gear box of inter jeep, engine of auto riksha vikram tempo, clutch outer matador old model, master cylinder kit Maruti ''s and backwards PATA and kabana, of small autorikshaw. Therefore, his tempo could not run fast on road and could not take load. Thus, assembling various parts of different vehicles, the OP -2 prepared the said vehicle, it is like a fake one and the OPs have sold it to the complainant by cheating. Thus, the vehicle has manufacturing defect for which M/s Sooraj automobiles Ltd. OP -2 is fully liable.

THE counsel for the OPs submitted that, the complainant has not specifically stated about the problems in vehicle, there was no expert opinion; hence the complaint is not maintainable. OP -1 was a just dealer, not a manufacturer; hence OP -1 is not liable. While, the OP -2 took a stand that, he sold the vehicle to OP -1, the dealer on 30.6.1995 for Rs.74,993/ -, thereafter, OP -1 sold the said vehicle to Complainant on

8.1995 FOR Rs.1,02,973/ -. As per OP -2 warranty of 3 months remains till 7.11.1995 only, thereafter, the question of warranty was a duty of OP -1 only. And also the OP -1 should responsible FOR providing service during warranty period. 8. We have perused the evidence on record. The District FORum recorded the evidence that, the complainant presented several bills of items purchased FOR the repair of his vehicle, dated 20.8.95,22.8.95, 25.8.95,18.9.95, 2.11.95, 4.11.95,16.4.95 and 19.6.95. This allegation of complainant is also supported by the affidavit of Chetan mechanic. Also, OP -2 himself has admitted that on 07.04.1996 Satyapal was sent and he repaired gear box and differential, i.e. after the warranty period, which clearly signifies that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defect. The State Commission observed that the district FORum has not given permission to take on record the affidavit of Chetan mechanic; hence it lost the evidentiary value. We are of considered view that, this case pertains to year 1995, already over two decades are lapsed, hence now it will be unjust to remand back this case to District Forum FOR further an expert opinion. Hence, we cannot ignore the affidavit of Chatan which carries crucial evidentiary value.

THEREFORE , we accept this revision and set aside the order passed by the State Commission. At this stage, we do not find any evidence that in whose possession the vehicle is now? Therefore, considering the depreciation and the peculiarity of this case which was dragged for more than two decades, we are of opinion that, lump sum compensation will be just and proper.

THEREFORE , we pass the following order that, if the vehicle is in possession of complainant, he should hand over the vehicle in question to the OP -1, thereafter, OP -1 and 2 directed to pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs.1,50,000/ -, along with Rs.25000/ - towards mental agony and Rs.20000/ - as cost of litigation within 90 days, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till it ''s realization.