MUTHA AGENCIES vs NAVIN KUMAR BHAGIRATHI

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 13.2.2002 in Complaint No. 307/01 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant to fit vertical engine in the auto rickshaw of respondent or on failing to do so, provide him with a new auto rickshaw. Besides, compensation of Rs. 6,627/- and cost of the complaint Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded in favour of the complainant.

UNDISPUTEDLY, appellant No. 2 is the manufacturer of Mini Door Auto Rickshaw while appellant No. 1 was its dealer. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/respondent purchased one Mini Door Auto Rickshaw on 17.5.2000 from the appellant No. 1 Mutha Agencies. Warranty was also given by the appellant. It also appears that the price of the said auto rickshaw was paid by the complainant/respondent after obtaining loan from the Bank. It is also not in dispute that horizontal engine has been fitted in the auto rickshaw. The averments of the complainant were that the auto-rickshaw started developing defects from the very beginning. The complainant, therefore, at the time of servicing of the auto rickshaw on 8.6.2000 complained about the defects regarding starting problem and noise in the steering. Subsequently, it developed other problems and the matter was reported to the appellant at the time of second servicing on 23.6.2000. Subsequent servicing were also availed of by the complainant. According to the complainant he was alert about the maintenance and followed conditions of warranty. However, as the auto rickshaw continued to develop defects, he approached the Consumer Forum and filed the complaint praying that the engine in the auto rickshaw be fitted vertically. It was also prayed by the complainant that the amount of Rs. 6,627/- spent by him in the repairs be also awarded. Complainant also claimed compensation of Rs. 1.00 lac for mental harassment and financial loss caused to him.

The opposite parties/appellants resisted the complaint. In its reply O.P. No. 2 averred that the auto rickshaw was sold to the complainant by O.P. No. 1, the dealer and as the relationship between opposite parties was on principal to principal basis, there was no cause of action as against O.P. No. 2 and the complaint as against him was not tenable. It was also averred that there was no manufacturing defect in the auto rickshaw and the defects alleged by the complainant must have occurred on account of misuse, improper maintenance and overloading etc. The complaints made by the complainant regarding the problems in the auto-rickshaw, were duly attended to by the dealer-O.P. No. 1 and repairs were carried out free of charge. It was also averred that the defects as alleged were not on account of horizontal fitment of the engine which was so fitted to reduce vibration and to ensure comfort to the passengers and driver. It was also averred that most of the defects mentioned by the complainant developed after the warranty was over.

DISTRICT Forum held that the vehicle continued to develop defects which could not be rectified despite reported by the complainant, to O.P. No. 1 dealer. It was, therefore, held that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. It was also held that the engine of the said vehicle should have been vertical, instead of horizontal. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and it was directed that fitting of the engine should be changed and vertical engine should be fitted therein, failing which a new auto rickshaw will be provided to the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 6,627/- was also awarded, as the complainant had to incur expenditure to the above extent. It may be noticed that as per terms and conditions of warranty, the copy of which is placed on record of the District Forum, the warranty was for a period of 180 days or 7500 kms whichever event occurs earlier from the date of purchase of the vehicle. It further appears that first servicing was to be availed of on running of 1000 to 1500 kms, second servicing on running of 2000 to 2500 kms, third servicing on running of 4000 to 5000 kms and fourth servicing between 6000 to 7500 kms of running of the vehicle.

IT would appear from the job card dated 8.6.2000 that the first servicing was availed of after the vehicle had run 2718 kms i.e., much after running of the vehicle as provided for first servicing in the warranty. The second servicing was availed of on 23.6.2000 after the vehicle had plied 4719 kms i.e., much after running of the vehicle upto 2500 kms as per warranty condition. Similarly, 3rd servicing was availed of by the complainant on 19.7.2000 when the meter reading was 83254 kms i.e., much beyond the warranty limit of 5000 kms for 3rd servicing. Fourth servicing was availed of on 18.9.2000 after the vehicle had run 24028 kms i.e., much beyond the limit of 7500 kms as per the warranty. Clearly, therefore, none of the servicing availed by the complainant were as per warranty conditions. IT would also appear that each time servicing was done by the dealer and satisfaction was certified by the complainant on the job card. In the 1st, 2nd and 3rd servicing there appears to be no major defect in the vehicle and the oil filter, brake setting were checked up and servicing done. Routine check up as above and change of oil indicates that there was no major defect in the vehicle in the first three servicing. IT appears that when the vehicle was brought on 18.9.2000 to the dealer there was change in oil filter, piston ring, engine oil and repairs in radiator etc. This was much after the warranty when the vehicle had already run for more than 14000 kms. From the above it appears that complainant did not comply with the warranty conditions and did not avail of mandatory free servicing during the subsistance of the warranty, within the stipulated limits. It also appears that the vehicle was being over used; which is clear from the fact that though the vehicle was brought for servicing during short intervals, but its running was much beyond the limits stipulated in the warranty. There is also no material on record to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the auto rickshaw. No expert opinion on that count has been produced. District Forum also observed that the auto rickshaw should have been fitted with vertical engine. However, there is absolutely no basis for the finding and observation as above. We do not have any material to show that horizontal engine had any disadvantage. It does not appear the complainant/respondent was entitled to get a vertical engine fitted in the auto-rickshaw, as has been prayed by him.

IN view of the breach of warranty conditions by the complainant/respondent, the appellants do not appear to be liable for the defects developed subsequently after expiry of the warranty. There also appears to be no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. IN the circumstances, the complainant could not succeed and was not entitled to any relief. District Forum erred in awarding him compensation, as also in directing that his auto rickshaw should be fitted with vertical engine and in the alternative he should be provided with a new auto rickshaw.

CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.