STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.401 of 2016

Date of Institution: 10.05.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 18.09.2017

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400039 (India), through Mr. A.Vashwanath, Vice President.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

1. Vimal Gandhi S/o Guru Prasad, # House No. 5/A, NIT, Faridabad.
2. M/s Prime Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (Genuss Motors), 20/2 Mathura Road, Faridabad, through its Director/Authorised Signatory.

         …..Respondents

F.A.No.429 of 2016

Date of institution: 16.05.2016

Date of Decision: 18.09.2016

M/s Prime Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (Authorized Dealer of respondent No.2), 20/2 Mathura Road, Faridabad, through its Administration Manager Sh.Sonu Sharma S/o Sh.Kishan Chand Sharma.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Vimal Gandhi S/o Guru Prasad, # House No. 5/A, NIT, Faridabad.

2.      M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400039 (India), through Mr. A.Vashwanath, Vice President.

…..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

Present:-    Mr.Munish Jain, Advocate counsel for Mahindra and Mahindra in both cases.

                   Mr.D.P.S.Maan, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant in both the cases.

                   Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for  Prime Automobiles.

                                      O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this order above mentioned two appeals bearing Nos.401 of 2016 and 429 of 2016 will be disposed of, as both are directed against the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      As per complainant he purchased vehicle make XUV-500 manufactured by opposite party (O.P.) No.1- M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Limited from O.P.No.2 i.e. M/s Prime Automobiles on 13.03.2012 for Rs.12,44,999/-.  Later-on it was found that there was rust on so many parts of the vehicle such as bonnet, dickey, all doors, petrol nozzle, around the engine and roof of the vehicle etc. The vehicle was also having problem of major suspension, noise and sensor.  As they were    manufacturing defect  the vehicle was taken to O.P.No.2 on 18.09.2013 and job order was prepared on 20.09.2013 showing all the problems. He requested O.Ps. so many times to replace the vehicle, but, they offered to replace all doors, body shell, fuel LID cover, all doors Hindge, Bumper, Facia, Bonnet and Bonnet Lock Latch of the said vehicle. As there was manufacturing defect, so the O.Ps. be directed to replace the vehicle or to refund the cost and giving compensation as prayed for.

3.       O.P.No.1 was proceeded ex parte, so only  O.P.No.2 filed reply controverting averments of complainant.  It was alleged that there was no manufacturing  defect in the vehicle. They  never admitted about any manufacturing defect. O.P.No.1 never assured to replace articles as alleged by complainant.   The present complaint is an abuse of  process of law and is filed just to harass them.  Objections about territorial jurisdiction, accruing cause of action , locus standi, concealing true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District         Forum allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to refund, jointly and severally, an amount of Rs.12,44,999/- as well as Registration charges alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase and registration of the vehicle in question respectively till the realization of amount to the complainant and after receipt of said amount, the complainant shall return the vehicle in question to opposite parties. Opposite parties NO.1 and 2 are further  directed to pay, jointly and severally, Rs.50000/- on account of mental tension, agony