Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SURJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT, CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, PREM CHAUHAN, MEMBERS
Harvinder Singh — Appellant
Versus
Mohindra And Mohindra Limited And Ors. — Respondent
First Appeal No. 318 of 2012
Decided on : 27-06-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajan Kohl, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate
The main legal point established is that under the Consumer Protection Act, respondents can be held jointly and severally liable for unjustifiable delays in repairing a vehicle under warranty.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Vehicle Warranty - Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [Section 12] - Appellant purchased a vehicle under warranty, which broke down and faced delays in repair. The court found the respondents jointly and severally liable for the delay in repairing the vehicle and ordered compensation and refund of charges.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant purchased a vehicle under warranty, which broke down and faced delays in repair. He filed a complaint seeking damages for the delay and claimed compensation for loss of business, mental agony, and taxi charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in repairing the vehicle was unjustifiable and held the respondents jointly and severally liable. It also ordered compensation and refund of charges to the appellant.
Issues: Delay in repairing the vehicle, liability of the respondents, and refund of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in repairing the vehicle was unjustifiable and found the respondents jointly and severally liable. It also ordered compensation and refund of charges to the appellant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the respondents to pay compensation and refund charges to the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Surjit Singh, President
Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed with the finding that the allegations made by him do not stand established.
2. Appellant purchased a Scorpio vehicle from respondent No. 2, M/s. Goel Motors Private Limited, Mohali, on 12.11.2009, under a warranty for two years or coverage of 50000 kilometers, whichever occurred earlier. According to him, vehicle broke down, when being taken by him to his native place from Pathankot, on 25.10.2010. It was taken to Universal Motors, Pathankot, who happened to be one of the authorized repairers of the manufacturer of the vehicle, impleaded as opposite party No. 1, and respondent No. 1, herein. Said repairer charged Rs. 2,000/- for opening and resetting the engine. After opening the engine, the said repairer told the appellant that there was some serious defect in the engine, which he was unable to rectify.
3. Vehicle was then taken to another authorized service station of respondent No. 1, i.e. M/s. Shimla Automobiles, Kangra, respondent No. 5, herein. It was left at the workshop of respondent No. 5 on 27.10.2010. Respondent No. 5 could not detect the defect and the vehicle remained at its workshop upto 15th December, 2009. Thereafter, vehicle was taken to the workshop of respondent No. 4, who is also an authorized service station of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 4 also took a very long time and ultimately the vehicle was handed over to the appellant on 12.2.2011 and a sum of Rs. 1,550/- was charged from him, on account of cost of oil filter, which was replaced.
4. Appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking damages for the delay caused in repairing the vehicle. He allegedly suffered loss of business to the tune of Rs. 5,60,000/-. He also claimed a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1.00 lac as taxi charges.
5. Complaint was contested by all the respondents. A joint reply was filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondent No. 2 filed a separate reply. Respondents No. 1 and 3 also filed a separate common reply. Respondents No. 4 and 5 denied that the vehicle was under warranty at the time, when it was handed over to them for carrying out repairs. They denied that delay had been caused in repairing the vehicle. However, they did not deny that vehicle was left at the workshop of respondent No. 5 on 27.10.2010 and it was returned to the appellant on 12.02.2011, after carrying out repair at the workshop of respondent No. 5. Respondents No. 1 and 3 stated that they were never apprised of deficiency/delay in providing service by respondents No. 4 and 5 and hence, no liability could be fastened upon them. Respondent No. 2 also stated that no intimation of the defect in the vehicle or delay caused by respondents No. 4 and 5 in carrying out the repair was given to it.
6. Learned District Forum concluded that there was no evidence in support of appellants allegation that at the time of sale, he was told that the vehicle was free from defects. Also, it has been observed by the learned District Forum that within seven days of his leaving the vehicle at the workshop of respondent No. 5, he was informed that the vehicle was required to be taken to the workshop of respondent No. 4. With these findings, complaint has been dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. From the very name and style of respondents No. 4 and 5, it is more than clear that respondents No. 4 and 5 are the branches of the same concern located at different places. If that is so, when the vehicle was left at Kangra workshop, impleaded as respondent No. 5, it was the responsibility of Kangra workshop, to take the vehicle to Mandi workshop, that work
