Back
2008(2) CPR 369(NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
M.B. Shah, President and Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member
Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar —Petitioner
versus
M/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Anr. —Respondent
Revision petition No.351 of 2006
Decided on 25.2.2008
For the Respondents:Mr. Anand Patwardhan and Mr. Sharma Prakash, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where in case of vehicle suffering from manufacturing defects, it being a clear case of res ipsa loquitor, there was held to be no need to refer vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) —Complainant purchased Tata Sumo manufactured by OP2 from its authorized dealer OP1—Complainant found a number of manufacturing defects in vehicle—Vehicle handed over to custody of OP1 when defects not removed to satisfaction of complainant—Complaint—Allowed by District Forum directing OPs to replace vehicle with a brand new vehicle—Appeals there against—State Commission allowed appeal filed by OP1 directing appellant to deliver vehicle to complainant making it roadworthy by replacing parts at their own costs —Revision petition—Instantly, from day one onwards vehicle was found to be defective which was admitted by dealer himself through his letters—Naturally, encountered with these problems the complainant was shell shocked compelling him to knock at doors of consumer forum—Even before consumer forum in written submissions filed by OP1 there was a clear admission of the manufacturing defects—Hence, held that vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects—This being a clear case of res ipsa loquitor i.e. facts speaks themselves hence there held to be no need to refer vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion—Direction given to respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 3,29,500 with 9% interest p.a. from 19.7.2005 till date of payment—Respondent directed also to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs—Revision petition allowed. (Paras 15, 18)
Result: Revision petition allowed.
P.D. Shenoy, Member—The factual matrix of case in brief is as follows:
2. On 18.6.2004 the complainant Mr. Shirgaonkar purchased a Tata Sumo manufactured by M/s Tata Motors Ltd.(Original OP 2) from its authorized dealer M/s Pandit Automotive Ltd., Tilak Road, Pune(Original OP 1). The complainant found a number of defects in the vehicle, hence he took the vehicle to OP 1 who tried to remove the defects but not to the satisfaction of the complainant. He was convinced that there were manufacturing defects accordingly, he handed over the vehicle to custody of OP1 on 12.7.2004 since then it is lying there.
3. Later on the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Pune, which was resisted by the OPs stating that defective parts of the vehicles have been replaced and the vehicle was properly repaired. Though the vehicle was kept ready for delivery, complainant did not take the same and insisted on its replacement.
4. The District Forum after hearing the parties and going through the records of the case allowed the complaint by its order dated 2.9.2005 and directed the OPs jointly and severally to replace the vehicle with a brand new vehicle within six weeks from the date of the order. OPs were also directed to pay Rs.10,000 to the complainant by way of costs of the proceedings and as compensation.
5. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum OP1, OP 2 and complainant have filed 3 separate appeals.
6. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by OP 2 M/s Tata Motors. The Commission also allowed the appeal filed by the OP1 with the following directions:
“However, appellant is directed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant within 15 days from the date of order, making it roadworthy. If some parts are required to be replaced, appellant shall replace the parts at their cost and made the vehicle roadworthy.”
7. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and the complaint filed by the complainant with the aforesaid directions.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the complainant has filed revision petition before us.
Findings:
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The complainant had purchased Tata Sumo Ex + Model vehicle on 18.6.2004. When the delivery was taken head light setting was not proper, engine noise was found, weather strip was not good, tyre pressure was not checked. Vehicle was not cleaned from inside and outside. Black spots on the vehicle were there as the vehicle was parked under a tree. After cleaning the vehicle, the dealer has delivered it on the same day at 9.30 p.m. As the problems persisted OP1 gave the vehicle to M/s Shinde Auto Motor Service, authorized workshop of OP 2 on 8.7.2004 on which date water leakage problem was found. Accordingly, job card was prepared but the problem could not be rectified to the satisfaction of the petitioner as according to him they tried to rectify the same by use of sealant. The complainant was advised to refer the vehicle to workshop of OP1. The vehicle was given on 12.7.2004 to the workshop and the job card No.13157 was prepared. It was observed that at that time there was poor pick up and kilometer reading was 3130. During the rains from 18.6.2004 to 12.7.2004 there was seepage of water inside the vehicle. The vehicle was checked by the employees and supervisor of OP1 and they came to a conclusion that the engine was completely defective. The OP1 promised that the engine will be changed completely but they refused to change the body of the vehicle despite seepage of the water inside the vehicle. The complainant felt that OP1 had sold a second hand defective vehicle to him. The request of the complainant asking OP 1 to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle free from defects was not acceded to hence he left the vehicle at the workshop of OP1 on 19.7.2004. Since then it is lying there.
10. In this connection, it is worthwhile to look into certain documents. On 9.8.2004, Shri S.C. Vartak, General Manager of
