IMPORTANT POINT
Act of detaining vehicle only on account of non-payment of labour charges after having agreed to rectify defects as a goodwill gesture, tantamounts to deficiency in service on part of manufacturer as well as dealer.

Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to the order, dated 02.08.2010, in First Appeal No.955 of 2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum with respect to deficiency of service on behalf of the manufacturer and the dealer in not rectifying the defects and returning the vehicle to the Complainants.

2. The facts briefly put are that the Complainants had purchased Ashok Leyland Company’s Truck Model “Taurus” vide bill no.F-Bees-308, dated 07.03.1995. They found certain technical and manufacturing defects in the vehicle which were informed to the dealer several times, but not rectified. It is pleaded that the relevant parts were not available with the dealer; the clutch plates, springs, suspension system etc. were not in accordance with the original parts and had been forcibly fitted leading to improper functioning of the vehicle. It is averred that the rear suspension system, rod and lever chassis frame, etc. were defective which had led to frequent break downs and towing of the truck to the workshop.

3. On 23.07.1997 and on 01.09.1997, an inspection was carried out by an Engineer appointed by the dealer, M/s Rajesh Motors and an assurance was given on 22.08.1997 that all the defects would be removed and the vehicle would be handed over to the Complainants in a road worthy condition. The Complainants pleaded that letters were written on 13.08.1997, 22.09.1997, 23.12.1997 and a legal notice was also issued on 12.01.1999 but the vehicle was not returned to the Complainants. On 17.10.1997, it was agreed by the Opposite Parties that the parts would be replaced free of cost, but they did not adhere to the agreed terms. They pleaded that the vehicle was with the dealer in a defunct condition on account of which they had suffered loss of monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- and could not pay the installments on time to the Finance Company, resulting in compounded interest and other expenses. Hence, they preferred a Complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to remove the manufacturing defects, pay the monthly loss of Rs. 25,000/-, the installments with interest, compensation and costs.

4. The first Opposite Party, i.e. the manufacturer, Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai did not file their Written Version before the District Forum.

5. The second and the third Opposite Parties, i.e., the dealer M/s Rajesh Motors Limited and Ashok Leyland, Jaipur Branch had filed their joint Written Version denying that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that the parts of every type were available with the dealer and it was only due to over loading of the said vehicle that the parts had become defective. There was no problem with the suspension of the vehicle and the vehicle had run on the road for almost two years. The vehicle was purchased in the year 1995 and was used for business purposes till 1997 and it was only when the warranty period had expired that the Complainants approached them to get the truck repaired. All the repairs were conducted and it was only due to non-payment of the bill that the truck was not returned to the Complainants. All other allegations in the Complaint were denied by the second and the third Opposite Parties in their written version.

6. The District Forum, based on the evidence filed, allowed the Complaint and observed as follows:

1. “The questioned vehicle which was handed over to respondent no.2 for repairing, may kindly be handed over to complainants by the respondent no.2 within 40 days after received fitness certificate of vehicle from respondent No.1 in working condition as its equivalent to same old age vehicle and duly change its parts according to the consent and written statement of respondents No.2 & 3 and removin