Kartar Singh vs M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors

Heard Mr. Kartar Singh, In person, the petitioner.

This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh, dated 15.04.2021, passed in Appeal No. 216 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, dated 11.03.2019, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2017), whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to remove the defects in the vehicle, particularly to change the required parts and tyres of the vehicle, charging 25% of the cost of the tyres from the petitioner and to pay Rs.200000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.15000/- as cost of the litigation and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

Kartar Singh (the petitioner) filed Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2017, for directing the respondents to pay Rs. 8 lakhs as the damages for the loss suffered by him and the damages at the rate of Rs.10000/- per day, from the date of filing of the complaint till handing over the possession of the vehicle after removal of the defects in it and exchange of new tyres; in alternative the opposite parties be directed to change the chassis of the vehicle with new one and pay all the expenses to make the vehicles road-worthy.

It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was running transport business at Mandi Gobindgarh and plying vehicles from mandi Gobindgarh to other destinations as private carrier, for his own employment to serve his family and earn livelihood. Kulwinder Singh (opposite party-2) was working as an agent for M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashok Leyland (opposite parties-1 and 3) for promoting sale of their vehicle. M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1) was an authorised dealer of M/s. Ashok Leyland (opposite party-3), who was a manufacturer and supplier of Ashok Leyland, commercial vehicle. The complainant purchased a Ashok Leyland, commercial vehicle of 12 tyres, having class HGB, Chassis No. MBIKACFDIHPGX 1855, Engine No.HGPZ104162, 180 HP, having 6 cylinders, unload weight 7300 Kgs, Registration No. PB-23 T-4211 on 03.02.2017 from M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1), for Rs.2090700/-. Opposite Party-1 assured that the vehicle was free from any fault/defect and J.K. Tyres were equipped in the vehicle, which had guaranteed running capacity of 150000 K.M. without any torn or five years warrantee, whichever was earlier. Opposite party-1 supplied a book-let of the vehicle, which was in English language. The complainant was not acquainted with English language, however technician of opposite party-3 was present there, who satisfied the complainant regarding specifications, durability, mileage, warrantee and other conditions of the vehicle. The complainant took finance for purchasing the vehicle from Fulltron India Credit Company Ltd., for which he was paying EMI of Rs.50000/- per month. After incurring Rs.380000/- in construction of wooden body, the complainant started plying it on road from 11.03.2017. After sometime, the complainant realised that the tyres were diminishing and actually diminished its full capacity while running 37000 KM. The vehicle was not giving mileage as per specification as assured at the time of purchase. The complainant brought the vehicle to workshop of opposite party-1 at Ludhiana on 29.08.2017 and asked him to replace the tyres and chassis with new one as per guarantee but they were not giving any heed to his request and the vehicle was standing at their workshop. Market price of two set of JK tyres was Rs.42000/. Due to defect in chassis, the complainant suffered loss of 113000/- mileage. Due to defect in vehicle and not removing the defect, the complainant suffered business loss of Rs1600000/- and continuously suffering loss of Rs10000/- per day. He claimed Rs.600000/- for mental agony. On allegations that opposite parties were committing deficiency in service, the complaint was filed on 22.09.2017.

M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Kulwinder Singh filed their joint written reply on 20.12.2017 and contested the case. In the written reply, it has been stated that the complainant voluntarily came on their agency and purchased the vehicle on 03.02.2017. They had not given any assurance regarding the tyres had guaranteed running capacity of 150000 K.M. without any torn or five years warrantee, whichever was earlier. However, it has been stated that the tyres equipped in the vehicles were of JK Tyres of superior quality without any defect. The chassis of the vehicle did not have any manufacturing defect. All the tyres of the vehicles had still 50% of its capacity as per report of JK Tyre Company. The complainant throughout used the vehicle in overloaded condition, ignoring the specifications given by the opposite parties and got conducted the wheel alignment only on two times since its purchase, contrary to the specifications, as such the tyres were diminished its capacity. On the request of the complainant, wheel alignment was done by the opposite party free of cost, for maintaining his goodwill. The vehicle in question was in very good condition but the complainant was not taking the vehicle from the workshop, although he was informed for taking the vehicle many times. The preliminary objection that the complainant was engaged in commercial activities of transport business and purchased the commercial vehicle for earning profit and was not a consumer and his complaint was not maintainable was also raised.

M/s. Ashok Leyland (opposite party-3) filed its separate written reply on 20.12.2017, in which similar plea as taken by opposite parties-1 and 2 were taken. The preliminary objection that the complainant had two commercial vehicles and was engaged in commercial activities of transport business and had purchased third commercial vehicle for earning profit and was not consumer and his complaint was not maintainable was also raised.

District Forum by judgement dated 11.03.2019, found that the complainant was a consumer. Although in "Extended Warrantee Package Super" (Ex.C-2), it was mandatory to carry out service at any of Ashok Leyland's Dealership Authorised Service Centre, but the complainant was not informed in this respect. From the Job Sheet, relating to the service of the vehicle, it was proved that King Pin, Bushes and Axle Arm of both the sides of front wheels were always changed. Due to problem in Axle, there was abnormal wear and tear of tyres. Inspection Report of Roop Rai Mechanical Work did not show and manufacturing defect in the vehicle. From meter reading, it has been proved that the complainant had run the vehicle for 37000 K.M. which was approximately 25% of the warrantee period. On these findings, the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to remove the defects in the vehicle to the satisfaction of the petitioner by changing required parts and all the tyres of the vehicles, charging 25% of the cost of the tyres from the petitioner and to pay Rs.200000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.15000/- as cost of the litigation. The complainant filed First Appeal No. 216 of 2019 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. and M/s. Grover Motor Pvt. Ltd. filed First Appeal No. 235 of 2019, from the aforesaid order. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard together. State Commission, after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 15.04.2021, affirmed the findings of the District Forum and dismissed both the appeals. Hence this revision has been filed.

We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The petitioner raised two grounds in the complaint i.e. (i) there was manufacturing defect in chassis and (ii) the tyres of the vehicles were not standard JK Tyres. District Forum obtained expert report regarding manufacturing defects in the vehicle from, Roop Rai Mechanical Work. Inspection of the vehicle was carried in presence of the both the parties and video recording of the inspection was also done. In Expert report, no manufacturing defect in the vehicle was found. The opposite parties have also filed report of expert of JK Tyres, showing that tyres were of standard JK Tyres and it diminished before guarantee period due to rough use, overloading of the vehicle and not carrying timely alignment. However, District Forum and State Commission ignored this report and relied upon Job Sheet, relating to the service of the vehicle and on its basis held that as King Pin, Bushes and Axle Arm of both the sides of front wheel was always changed, as such due to problem in Axle, there was abnormal wear and tear of tyres. Although in "Extended Warrantee Package Super" (Ex.C-2), it was mandatory to carry out service at any of Ashok Leyland's Dealership Authorised Service Centre and regular alignment of the tyres and a fixed period, but the complainant version that he was not informed in this respect, was believed. As such the complainant has already been granted relief in this respect.

The allegation that the vehicle is still in the workshop of the opposite party-1, is concerned, if there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the petitioner is not justified in leaving the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party-1 on the demand to replace the chassis. The petitioner cannot gain any benefit for his unjustified demand and voluntarily leaving the vehicle at the workshop. If the order of District Forum has not been complied with, the petitioner can file an application for its execution before District Forum.

ORDER

In view of aforementioned discussions, the revision has no merit and it is dismissed.