HANS HUNDAI vs Anil Kumar Gupta

APPELLANT is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 2.8.2004 passed by the District Forum whereby it has been directed to replace the gear box and clutch plates which are main cause of jerking of the engine of the vehicle purchased from it by the respondent besides Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

ADMITTEDLY the vehicle No. DL4CP6996 was purchased by the respondent from the appellant on 31.10.2002. The respondent was not satisfied with the vehicle and on the next date of purchase he went to service centre of the appellant as there was lot of jerking in the car and he was asked to bring the vehicle at the time of first service. The appellant provided first service on 9.12.2002, there was a clutch problem which remained unsolved. In spite of having visited the appellant on 10.12.2002, 13.12.2002, 20.12.2002, 27.12.2002 and 31.12.2002 and lastly on 3.1.2003, the appellant failed to rectify the problem. However, the request of the respondent to replace the gear box with new one was not accepted by the appellant. The stand of the appellant is that whenever the respondent brought the vehicle to its workshop no defect was pointed out and there were only minor defects which were rectified immediately and most of the time the respondent brought the vehicle for non-functioning of the air-conditioner.

There is no dispute that the car in question was taken to the appellant on the aforesaid occasions and according to the appellant itself it was brought on 15.2.2003, 15.4.2003, 21.4.2003 and 19.5.2003 with the the problem of air conditioner only and for free service. District Forum also appointed Local Commissioner to find out the condition of the gear. The Local Commissioner conducted the trial of all gears and found problem of jerks/shakeness on first and second gears.

NO customer or for that purpose consumer feels happy to visit the garage time and again and that after interval of 2-3 days in a week if the vehicle is functioning properly as the frequent visit of consumer to the garage cause lot of inconvenience, harassment and mental agony. The very fact that the car was taken on more than 10 occasions to the garage of the appellant within the duration of December, 2002 to April, 2003 shows that the car was having aforesaid defects which could not be rectified without replacing the gear box and clutch plates. It is always in the interests of a provider of service to provide service or sell an article to the satisfaction of the consumer in the modern world of competitiveness. If the consumer is not satisfied and is harassed to take article or goods purchased by him time and again to the seller or provider of service, there is no other option open with the consumer than to drag the seller of provider of service to the Court or the District Forum constituted for the protection of the interests of the consumers. We do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order as constant visits of the respondent to the workshop of the appellant amount to deficiency in service and dismiss the appeal in limine.

THE FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal dismissed.