SUSANTA KUMAR PRADHAN vs D.K.DHANIJA

THIS is an appeal by the complainant being dissatisfied with the award of the District Forum, Ganjam, Berhampur directing the O.Ps. manufacturer and dealer to carry on necessary repair works to the vehicle, a Bajaj Tempo.

THE complainant purchased the Tempo Trax Challenger on 11.7.1994 from M.M. Motors and Tractors, Berhampur, the manufacturer being M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Pune. While the vehicle was sent for servicing, some defects were noted such as cracks on the body of the vehicle which was pointed out to one Rajib Rath, the Works Manager of the dealer. Photographs of the body showing cracks were taken and defects were noted by the dealer who assured to take up the work. Since this was not done he filed the case. The O.Ps. took the stand that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose as such the case was not maintainable. They denied of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. This was the case of the manufacturer. The O.P. dealer took the stand that the vehicle was attended to by free servicing at the workshop on 12.8.1994 and same was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. He also raises the question of limitation.

Mr. N.B. Das for the dealer submits that the opposite parties 2 and 4 have ceased to be dealer and, therefore, have no liability. The manufacturer further took the stand that on 28.11.1994 the vehicle was brought for 3rd servicing and the job card showed that the mechanic attended the vehicle and removed the defects and by that time the vehicle had covered 26,477 kms.

SO far as deficiency of service is concerned, the District Forum in para 7 dealt the matter and held that neither the complainant nor the O.Ps. filed any affidavit in support of their respective cases. It also held that documents filed from both sides revealed that some of the defects including the body cracks were pointed out during the period of warranty and the very issue of a draft for Rs. 12,000/- and cost of spare parts worth of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant under Ext. 1 showed that the O.Ps. were aware of the defects and agreed to make good the loss to the complainant to some extent. The District Forum did not allow compensation as claimed by the complainant because it accepted the case of the O.Ps. that the complainant failed to produce the vehicle for inspection and repair on or before 14.8.1996 as required by the letter dated 25.7.1995 of the dealer, the xerox copy of which was filed and marked as Ext. C. We find adequate reasons have been given to arrive at a finding that there was some defect in the evehicle but there was no proof of any manufacturing defects of the vehicle. We have seen Ext. A, the job card dated 8.11.1994. It seems no work was undertaken and this was the second free servicing. The job card dated 28.11.1994 i.e. Ext. A/1 shows it was free servicing when the vehicle had run 26,477 kms. On a note by the dealer on the remarks column it is found to have been mentioned that the body cracks were found on that date i.e., 28.11.1994 and photographs were taken at the workshop and photographs sent to Bajaj Auto Ltd. on 17.4.1995. The job card marked Ext. A/2 showed the vehicle had run 50,000 kms. when free servicing was done. The letter of the manufacturer dated 9.7.1995 with a copy to the dealer M/s. M.M. Motors and Tractors addressed to the complainant indicates that the manufacturer received the letter of the complainant dated 22.6.1995 regarding the chassis and they mentioned to have noted the contents therein and mentioned as examining the matter and would revert back to complainant. The complainant was requested to bear with them.

ALL these letters and the job cards do indicate that there was a crack in the chassis for which the complainant took up the matter with both the dealer and manufacturer. It cannot be said that the manufacturer was not aware of these cracks on the chassis. We are of the view that inspite of the defect, the vehicle was running out still the complainant had every reason to grudge for the non-removal of the defect in the chassis claimed by him. With these documents it could have legitimate on the part of the District Forum to award further compensation to the complainant besides the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which we assess at Rs. 10,000/- for mental stress and agony. In the result, we allow the appeal and direct the manufacturer to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum thereafter till payment is made. We also make it clear that the complainant is entitled Rs. 15,000/- as offered by the dealer which be paid to him, if not he has received the amount in the mean time, the entire exercise should be done within a period of three months by the manufacturer alone. We allow also costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the manufacturer. Appeal allowed.