Back
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Inder Singh Mehta, President and Sunita Sharma, Member
Vinay Pahwa – Appellant
versus
M/s Tapan Hyundai and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.193 of 2019
Decided on 1.12.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents Nos.2 and 3: None
IMPORTANT POINT
Mechanical/inspection report -The impugned order passed by learned District Commission, is premature in its nature, because the same has been passed without obtaining the mechanical/inspection report from the opposite parties No.2 & 3 on record, which is essential to determine the real controversy involved in the matter.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Product liability – Non obtaining of mechanical/inspection report - From OP’s – Dismissal of compliant not proper - Manufacturing defect - In the instant case, the complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and the said defect has not been removed by the respondents/opposite parties - The opposite parties No.2 and 3 have filed their reply on 12.07.2017 and since then, no such report has been placed on record on behalf of the opposite parties No.2&3 (manufactures of vehicle) - In these circumstances, the learned District Commission has passed the impugned order without obtaining the inspection report of mechanical expert of the manufactures, on record - Therefore, the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, is premature in its nature, because the same has been passed without obtaining the mechanical/inspection report from the opposite parties No.2 & 3 on record, which is essential to determine the real controversy involved in the matter – Therefore the impugned order is set aside and is remanded. [Paras 12 to 17]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Inder Singh Mehta, President—Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No.107/2017, titled Sh.Vinay Pahwa Versus M/s Tapan Hyundai & Ors.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant has purchased a car model Hyundai Eon ERA+ on 30.11.2016 from the opposite party No.1/M/s Tapan Hyundai, Shoghi, Shimla for consideration of Rs.3,74,240/- for his personal use. It is further pleaded that after purchase of said vehicle, within two-three days, some disturbing noise was detected on rear left side of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that the complainant took the vehicle to opposite party No.1/M/s Tapan Hyundai for necessary inspection/repairs, where mechanic of the opposite party No.1/M/s Tapan Hyundai tightened the shockers of the vehicle and told that there is no problem in the vehicle. But, the said problem/defect in the vehicle remained continuous and could not be rectified by the opposite party No.1/Tapan Hyundai. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant also intimated the opposite party No.3/Manufacturer regarding the defect in vehicle. But, in vain. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party No.1/M/s Tapan Hyundai by filing reply. It is pleaded that complainant came to the workshop of the opposite party No.1/M/s Tapan Hyundai on 18.12.2016 alongwith vehicle and the vehicle was thoroughly checked. No such noise was found in the vehicle and the complainant time and again was given test drive of the vehicle by the staff. It is further pleaded that bolts etc. of the vehicle were examined and vehicle was found in order. The complainant again gave his car for inspection only on 12.06.2017 and the vehicle was inspected by officials of opposite parties No.2 & 3 and the inspection report is still awaited.
4. The opposite parties No.2 and 3, manufacturer and regional office filed joint reply. It is pleaded that on 14.06.2017, vehicle of the complainant was brought for repair at Tapan Hyundai at the mileage of 4419 Kms. with the problem of noise from rear side of the vehicle. The vehicle of the complainant was inspected by the officials/personnel of the opposite parties No.2 and 3 on 14.06.2017 and report of that inspection is still awaited and as such complaint filed by the complainant is premature. It is further pleaded that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect.
5. In rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint and refuted the objections put forth by the opposite parties.
6. Thereafter parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
7. After hearing parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. District Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed on behalf of appellant/complainant and the record carefully.
10. Learned counsel of the appellant/complainant has submitted that the vehicle in question sold by the respondents/opposite parties is a defective vehicle. After the purchase, the vehicle was found defective and it was not in proper condition. Intimation was also given to the opposite parties pertaining to its defect. However, the opposite parties did not remove the defect. Opposite parties have inspected the vehicle and expert report has not been filed by the opposite parties till date. The learned counsel of the appellant/complainant has further submitted that the learned District Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint without obtaining expert report, which is yet to be filed by the opposite parties. He further submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal of the appellant be allowed.
11. On the other hand learned counsel of the respo
