AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In brief the case of the complainant was that the complainant purchased the subject vehicle for Rs. 8, 23, 581/- on 24.01.2008 from the respondent no.1 - the authorized dealer of the respondent no.2 - the manufacturer of the vehicle. Despite periodical services from the authorized dealer, the vehicle started giving trouble and stopped on 15.08.2008. It was ascertained that there was a problem in the FIE (Fuel Injection Equipment) and as per directions of the authorized dealer the vehicle was brought to the respondent no. 4 - authorized workshop of respondent no. 6 - the manufacturer of FIE, from where, after receiving the report, he again contacted the authorized dealer, who did not replace the said defective FIE and also did not replace all the "hardened tyres" inspite of promise, and declined to supply the PDI (Pre Delivery Inspection) report. A complaint was filed before the District Forum on 05.01.2009 for deficiency in service, inter alia seeking relief to replace the FIE of the vehicle with a new one; compensation of Rs.1, 00,000/-; "along with court costs interest at 12% per annum"; and other expenses / reliefs deemed fit.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 21.03.2009 dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act).
In appeal the State Commission vide its Order dated 19.03.2010 held that the complainant was a 'consumer' under the Act and remanded the matter back to the District Forum.
The District Forum treated the complainant as a 'consumer' under the Act, heard all sides, appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 19.08.2010 dismissed the complaint, inter alia holding that:
From the evidence given by CW1 and the report given by him it is crystal clear that the damage caused to FIE was not due to any inherent manufacturing defects of the said FIE. From the evidence on record, it can be stated that the said FIE was damaged due to carelessness or negligence of the driver or the owner of the said vehicle as they failed to check the accumulation of water and dust in the fuel tank and water separator. Though the said FIE was damaged during warranty period still the said damages were caused in the FIE due to carelessness or negligee of the driver or owner of the vehicle and for which the opponent 1, 2 and 4 are not at all responsible and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the opponents. Immediately after breaking down of the said vehicle near Belur the first opponent sent his mechanic and provided alternative FIE to ring the vehicle to the showroom of the first opponent after unloading the goods etc and sent the FIE to opponent No. 4 to find out the defects or damages caused to the said FIE.
Under the above said circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. In the instant case the opponents 5 and 6 are not at all necessary and proper party to this complaint as no relief is claimed against them and also in deficiency in service alleged against them by the complainant. We have discussed the evidence on record in detail we have gone through the affidavit evidence of the parties and the documents produced by them. On careful scrutiny of evidence on record we have no hesitation to hold that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. The complainant has failed to establish any inherent manufacturing defects in the said FIE and deficiency in service on the part of any of the opponents. Apart from it there is no any expert evidence to establish that there is any inherent manufacturing defects in the said FIE.
(para 26 of the Order)
The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard all sides, appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 28.05.2012 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that:
It is also contended that the vehicle in question has brought to R1 service station at his risk. On 15/08/2008 the vehicle was stopped near Belur while carrying goods, after checking, FIE was replaced, which is a part of the vehicle. The appellant has failed to prove that the vehicle in question purchased by him had inherent manufacturing defect. The vehicle was used to carry the goods in the district of Chikkamagalur, Shimoga and other parts of the Karnataka State and outside. On account of heavy rain in those areas, there is likelihood of mud and water entering into the engine and other parts for which the respondent dealer and the manufacture cannot be blamed. Since Opposite Party No. 1 is a dealer and the manufacture purchased the tyres from outside is not responsible for the ware and tare. Manufacture of the tyres is not a party to this proceeding. Therefore, viewed from any angle the appellant utterly failed to prove about the manufacturing defects of the vehicle. It seems that the complainant and his driver might have been mishandled the said vehicle while driving without checking the FIE and they have not taken proper care and therefore caused such damages to FIE. Therefore, considering all these facts, the D.F. has rightly held that the appellant/complainant has utterly failed to prove that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the FIE and deficiency in service on the part of ops. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we do not find any perverse or incorrect findings in dismissing the complaint by the D.F.
(para 11 of the Order)
This revision has been filed by the complainant under Section 21(b) of the Act against the said Order dated 28.05.2012 of the State Commission.
We have heard the learned counsels for all sides, and perused the record.
Section 21 (b) of the Act is as below:
To call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
The State Commission's Order dated 28.05.2012 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible.
There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.
The revision petition is dismissed.