Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
N.A. BRITTO, PRESIDENT & MR. JAGDISH PRABHUDESAI, MEMBER
AMINUDDIN MULLAH – Appellant
Versus
SAMARTH MOTORS (I) PVT. LTD – Respondent
Complaint No. 04 of 2009
Decided On : 18-05-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. E.O. Mendes, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. V.A. Kamat, Advocate.
Headnote:
Warranty - Consumer Protection - C.P. Act, 1986 - Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra, AIR 2006 SC 1586 - Savita Garg v. The Director, National Heart Institute, VI (2004) SLT 385 - Vinod Bhagat v. General Motors, 1998 (3) CPR 52 - Jogender Singh v. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd., I (2011) CPJ 264 (NC)=2011 (2) CCC 560 - Laxmi Engineering Works, (1995) 3 SCC 583 - Eicher Motors Ltd., I (2007) CPJ 51 (NC)
Fact of the Case:
Complainant seeks recovery of a sum and compensation for defects in trucks purchased from the O.P. The O.P. contests the complaint, citing non-joinder of necessary parties and violation of warranty terms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986, as the trucks were purchased for commercial use. The court dismissed the complaint, holding the complainant responsible for not bringing the alleged defects to the O.P.'s notice.
Issues: Non-joinder of necessary parties, violation of warranty terms, consumer status under the C.P. Act, 1986
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant did not qualify as a consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986, as the trucks were purchased for commercial use. The complainant was responsible for bringing the alleged defects to the O.P.'s notice.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.
ORDER
1. Complainant seeks to recover from the O.P. a sum of Rs. 22,54,530 and compensation of Rs. 3.90 lacs.
2. The Complainant purchased two trucks from the O.P., the authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland Ltd., one with 10 tyres and the other with 12 tyres, for a sum of Rs. 26,96,507. The truck with 12 tyres was purchased for Rs. 15,97,238 and was registered under No. KA-22-B-990. This truck is the subject matter of the complaint. The trucks had a warranty given by Ashok Leyland Ltd., for a period of 18 months from the date of sale or 1,50,000 kms whichever was earlier.
3. The obligation under warranty was limited to either repairing or replacing free of charge such parts of the vehicle as are deemed to be defective in the opinion of Ashok Leyland and would not extend to consequential losses. The replaced part was to be property of Ashok Leyland (Clause 4). The warranty was to be null and void if the vehicle is repaired or disassembled, even partially, by persons not belonging to Ashok Leyland’s authorized workshop (clause 8).
4. The vehicle was taken to the opponent on or about 13.9.08 and certain halogen bulbs were changed under warranty. Free servicing was done by the O.P. on 18.10.08 at 8,000 kms. Then the vehicle was attended to by Bellad & Company Pvt. Ltd., at Belgaum, another authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland on 27.09.08 and again on 3.1.09. On the first occasion, it was attended to for “power stg jam” and on second occasion for “air leakage and engine over raise” and clutch booster was replaced under warranty.
5. The complainant then got the truck attended to by Fazal Motors garage on or about 9.11.08 for overhauling of clutch kit.
6. The complainant then sent a notice to the O.P on or about 24.2.2009 demanding the said re-imbursement of Rs. 22,54,530 towards the cost of the vehicle, insurance paid, tax paid, payment for body building, etc and compensation of Rs. 3.9 lacs. The letter was replied to by the O.P, by their reply dated 22.6.09 and again by letter dated 26.4.09.
7. The complaint is filed on 17.3.2009 with the allegation that the complainant’s said vehicle suffered from several defects such as handle and steering lock, breakliners, consumption settings, engine-valve settings, clutch, tyres, etc, within a period of 5 months of the vehicle being put on the road and these problems have been cropping up every month and response of the mechanics of the O.P. has never been within 48 hours. Complainant stated that he made several requests to set right the said defects and had also written notice dated 24.2.09 requesting the O.P. to replace the defective vehicle with a new one or to return the price charges paid towards the expenses incurred by the complainant and the O.P. replied on 24.2.09 stating that the question of replacing the vehicle or compensating the complainant for the financial losses did not arise.
8. The complaint is contested by the O.P., inter alia, stating that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, namely Ashok Leyland Ltd., who is the manufacturer of the vehicle and Bellad & Company Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum with whom the complainant did the second servicing of the vehicle in question. O.P. stated that the complainant violated the terms of the warranty as the complainant carried out the repair with an unauthorized service station. O.P stated that the complainant never brought the alleged defects to the knowledge of the O.P. or any authorized service station. O.P. stated that the claim was inflated and further stated that the O.P. was only the authorized dealer and not the manufacturer of the vehicle.
9. We have heard Shri. Mendes, Lr. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant and Shri. V.A. Kamat, Lr. Advocate of the O.P., at length.
10. Shri. Mendes, the Lr. advocate of the complainant would submit that the O.P. markets and sells the trucks as free from defects and as such the O.P. is responsible for a defective vehicle. Lr. Advocate submits that the complainant need not make Ashok Leyland as a pa
