NAVYUG MACHINERY STORES vs Shyam Lal

THESE two appeals (Appeal No. 947 of 2000 by the manufacturer and Appeal No. 949 of 2000 by the dealer) from the order of District Forum, Alwar dated 14.7.2000 made in Complaint No. 1096 of 1998, arise under the following circumstances :

ON 8.1.1995 Sri Shyam Lal, respondent (the ''complainant'') purchased a Swaraj Mazda Truck being No. RJ-02-G-3097 from M/s. Navyug Machinery Stores, Alwar, Rajasthan (the dealer). The said vehicle was manufactured by M/s. Swaraj Mazda Ltd., Chandigarh, (Punjab) (the ''manufacturer''). On 22.10.1998 the complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ''Act'') before the District Forum, Alwar alleging therein that in the month of September, 1998 due to jam of the Relief Valve in the Oil Pump of the vehicle, CR Bearing No. 2 had been cut and reached Crank 300, causing damage to the Engine itself, that as the vehicle had been sold to him with warranty for three years, he contacted the dealer who advised him to get the necessary repairs done at his cost and subsequently his case would be recommended to the manufacturer for reimbursement and replacement of the defective engine, that on such assurance of the dealer, he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 10,000/- on the repairs of the engine and although the dealer had sent a letter to the manufacturer on 6.10.1998 in that behalf but the manufacturer did not reimburse him for the expenditure incurred by him and on 21.10.1998, the dealer also refused to replace the defective engine. He prayed for, (1) replacement of engine; (2) re-imbursement of Rs. 10,000/-; (3) Rs. 8,000/- for loss of business; (4) Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony; and (5) Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

The manufacturer did not put in appearance before the District Forum. However, the dealer filed his reply denying the allegations made against him by the complainant. In particular it was asserted that the vehicle was sold with a warranty of one year only against defects in spare parts and that during the period of warranty the complainant never complained of any trouble or defect in the vehicle. It was further averred that after the expiry of the period of warranty as and when the vehicle was brought to his workshop, service was given and defects therein, if any, removed and spare parts, which were damaged due to wear and tear on account of excessive use, were repaired or replaced.

IN the course of hearing the complaint the District Forum called for a report from a private mechanic and finally held that, (1) the vehicle carried a warranty against defective spare parts for three years (2) that the spare parts, including engine, were noticed to have become defective and unserviceable within the period of warranty; (3) that the complainant had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 8,800/- on the repairs of the defective parts and other expenses, and in calling report from mechanic. Therefore, allowing the complaint, the District Forum directed that, (1) the engine and defective spare parts of the vehicle be got replaced and repaired at Tata Telco Workshop, Alwar by the appellants; (2) for the aforesaid purpose the vehicle be produced on 25.7.2000 in the workshop of Telco by the appellants and if they failed to do so, the vehicle be produced there by the complainant and all the expenses incurred in connection with repairs and replacement shall be paid by the appellants with interest @ 15% p.a.; (3) the appellant shall pay sums of Rs. 1,100/- (Commissioner''s Fees), Rs. 900/- cost of litigation, Rs. 8,800/- paid by the complainant to the dealer on 6.10.1998 for getting the damaged parts repaired/replaced, and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

THE learned Counsel for the manufacturer as well as of the dealer has vehemently urged that the learned District Forum was misled by the complainant in reading the sale of a "Swaraj Mazda Truck with one year''s warranty" only as the sale of a "Swaraj Mazda "Premier" with three years warranty" and thus recorded a wrong finding and arrived at wrong conclusions. We find substance in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. On a close study of the material available on the record of the District Forum we find that the complainant did not produce the documents relating to the sale purchase and registration of the vehicle in question. Instead, what was produced by him were the photo-stat copies of the letter dated 6.10.1998 alleged to have been written by the dealer to the Civil Engineer of the manufacturer at Chandigarh, Cash Memo dated 7.10.1998 evidencing the sale of spare-parts worth Rs. 8,800/- by the dealer to the complainant, Repair Memo dated 6.10.1998 issued by Kishore Engineering Works at some unknown place, evidencing the repairs of the Relief Valve of the Oil Pump of complainant''s vehicle for Rs. 20/- only, manufacturers Warranty Card and a copy of the news-paper titled "Arun Prabha" dated 28.2.1995, published from Alwar, publicising inter alia, the merits of "Swaraj Mazda Premier" truck with three years warranty period. In all the above-mentioned documents, save the last mentioned one; there is no whisper that a "Swaraj Mazda Premier" was purchased by the complainant from the dealer. As against it, the Warranty Card produced by the complainant himself shows that the vehicle purchased by the complainant carried warranty for 12 months only. Condition No. 2 titled as "Term" of Manufactures Warranty reads as under : "2. Term This warranty shall exist for 12 months from the date of the delivery of the Swaraj Mazda Vehicle to its first retail purchase and any person being a purchase from him "The copy of Arun Prabha" news-paper was totally irrelevant to come to the conclusion that a "Swaraj Mazda Premier" with a warranty for three years was purchased by the complainant from the dealer. The Warranty Card produced by the complainant himself belied such a statement of fact by the District Forum.

THE above discussion is sufficient to hold that since the vehicle in question was purchased on 8.11.1995 with one year warranty only but the defects therein were alleged to be known only in the month of September, 1998, the complaint filed on 2.10.1998, alleging no defects in the vehicle prior to the month of September, 1998 had no merits at all and the District Forum could not have successfully invoked the warranty clause. We hold accordingly.

EVEN on merits we find no case in favour of the complainant. The letter dated 6.10.1998 is found to be not having the signatures of even the scribe thereof. Moreover, what it says is that the complaint of jam of the Relief Valve in the Oil Pump had though been removed, yet since the Crank had arrived at 300, threatening damage to the engine, hence replacement of engine was prayed for. The cash memo issued by the dealer on 7.10.1998 does not corroborate this statement. EVEN on 6.10.1998 (even if over-writing on the figure ''6'' be ignored) the vehicle was repaired for Relief Valve for Rs. 20/- only. EVEN the report made on 5.5.2000 by the Mechanic Commissioner, one Sri Anil Saini of Saini Auto Works, Altar simply suggests that the Crank noticed in the main standard (STD) in the engine threatened damage to engine and other parts of the vehicle. It is note-worthy that this report was made about five years after the purchase of the vehicle and at least about two years after noticing such crank in the engine by the complainant in the month of September, 1998. The Mechanic Commissioner has not even disclosed his qualification, knowledge of and experience in the subject of repairing engines. His report inspires no confidence in us. Simply to complete the discussion we refer to the Repair Memo Vehicle History Card and the Warranty Card produced by the appellants. These documents goes a long way to prove that as and when the vehicle in question was produced by the complainant for service and minor repairs, such service and minor repairs were duly made by the dealer within the warranty period and thereafter. In view of the infirmities pointed out by us in the evidence produced by the complainant in support of his version, we find good probative value of the evidence produced by the dealer in support of his version.

To sum up the discussion we hold that the appellants did neither sell defective goods to the complainant nor did render deficient after-sales service to him. The complaint was quite frivolous and vexatious and ought to have been dismissed as such by the District Forum.

IN the result the impugned order is set aside and both the appeals allowed with cost at Rs. 2,500/- in each of the appeals. Appeals allowed.