Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President &
Mrs. Mamata Lakshmanna, Member
HASSAN ALI KHAN—Complainant
versus
B. SESHAGIRI RAO AND SONS INDUSTRIES
LIMITED & ANR.—Opposite Parties
C.D. No. 9 of 1995—Decided on 19.11.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. P. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 :Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the Consumer Protection Act, a complainant must prove mechanical defects and deficiency in service to claim replacement of a product and compensation for loss.
Headnote:
Defective Car - Consumer Protection - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definitions of 'consumer', 'deficiency', 'service', and 'unfair trade practice'. The court analyzed the complainant's claim for replacement of the car and compensation for loss of business and mental agony in light of these provisions, emphasizing the need for the complainant to establish mechanical defects and deficiency in service. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought replacement of a defective car and claimed compensation for loss of business and mental agony. The car had multiple breakdowns and defects, leading to the complainant's alleged loss of business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to establish any mechanical defect in the vehicle and did not provide sufficient evidence of deficiency in service by the opposite parties. As a result, the complaint was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant was entitled to replacement of the car and compensation for loss of business and mental agony due to the alleged defects and breakdowns.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's failure to prove mechanical defects and deficiency in service, as required under the Consumer Protection Act, led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed by the court.
Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President—The complainant seeks for replacement of the car by a brand new one and claims a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation towards the loss of business sustained by him together with a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and strain suffered by him.
2. The facts that emerge on a reading of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tata Estate AC car from the first opposite party on 30.1.1995. On 31.1.1995 the car started giving trouble and it stopped on the way after covering a distance of 1 km. from his house. In fact he had an important meeting with the members of Nizam’s family to finalise the deal regarding investment of their money in the complainant’s Company. However, a mechanic was brought at about 5.30 p.m., who examined the car and said that the fault was in solenoid valve switch but repaired it temporarily and started the car. That complainant was advised to send the car to the workshop on 1.2.1995. The faulty solenoid switch was replaced on 1.2.1995 and the car as alright on 2.2.1995. Again the car started giving trouble on 3.2.1995, therefore, the complainant could not attend important meeting with the family members of Nizam both on 1.2.1995 and 3.2.1995 and as a result of which he sustained a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs since the family members of Nizam decided not to invest their money in the complainant’s business. Apart from that the complainant noticed that at the left hand side rear portion of the car there was a dent and colour mismatch. He pointed out 14 defects in the car as such he filed this complaint since the car was defective one and had obviously shortcomings in the quality potency and in the standard.
3. In the counter filed by the opposite parties there is no dispute about the purchase of the vehicle. It is stated that the complainant is only a hirer and, therefore, he has no locus standi to file this complaint, inasmuch as the Finance Company is the de jure owner of the car. It is also admitted that the vehicle stopped on account of defect in the solenoid switch and although there was no warranty for electrical items still as a gesture of goodwill the first opposite party replaced the solenoid switch free of cost. The reasons for failure of the said switch was rash driving of the vehicle and accelerating the engine unnecessarily which resulted in damage to the solenoid switch. Even after the replacement of the said switch the complainant could not handle the vehicle in terms of the manual instruction and brought back the vehicle for certain minor repairs on 4.2.1995. The complainant gave a list of 14 minor defects on 4.2.1995, while asking for replacement of the vehicle. There is no manufacturing defect in the car. Automated vehicle with power assisted steering wheel has to be driven carefully in terms of the manual of instructions at least for a period of first three months or 2000 kms. whichever is earlier. The complainant failed to adhere to the said guidelines. The vehicle was brought on 3.2.1995 for minor repairs and the same was made ready on 4.2.1995 itself but the complainant did not come to the garage to collect the same. The complainant is not entitled to claim replacement. He is also not entitled for any compensation for loss of business or for mental agony.
4. The complainant examined two witnesses including himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-28 while the opposite parties examined the Works Manager of the first opposite party as R.W. 1 and Senior Service Engineer of Telco and in-charge of entire Passenger Car Section Service in the State of Andhra Pradesh as R.W. 2 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-6.
5. The points for consideration are :
6. Whether there is any mechanical defect in the vehicle Tata 483 DL 41 engine Tata Estate Car purchased by the complainant, and if so, whether the complainant is entitled to any damages ?
7. The purchase of Tata Estate Car on 3.2.1995 in Invoice No. 00085 from the first opposite party by the complaina
