Pradeepta Ranjan Pattanaik vs Proprietor, Utkal Auto & 2 Ors

The complainant/petitioner purchased a Honda Activa Scooter from the respondent Utkal Auto. The said vehicle had been manufactured by the Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. The vehicle was purchased on 4.6.2012 for a consideration of Rs.56736/-. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that there was problem of imbalance while driving the vehicle particularly on sharp angular turnings when there was a pillion rider travelling on the scooter. The defect, according to the petitioner/complainant was pointed out to respondent No1 several times and repair was also carried out but the problem persisted despite the said repairs. The petitioner / complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking either replacement of the vehicle or the refund of the amount which he had paid for its purchase.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent No.1 which interalia maintained in its reply that the complaint was addressed as and when it was brought to its notice and that the complaint had been filed with an ulterior objective.

The District Forum vide its order dated 29.7.2013 directed respondent No.1 to rectify the defect of imbalance, if any, in the scooter free of charge. The complaint was disposed of accordingly.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 27.5.2014, the State Commission permitted the petitioner to take the vehicle to any other service centre of the manufacturer in Cuttack or Bhubaneswar and get the same repaired. The charges for such repair were directed to be borne by the manufacturer of the vehicle. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission.

The first question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the scooter or not. Admittedly, no expert evidence was produced by the petitioner before the District Forum. However, when the appeal was finally heard, the petitioner produced a letter purporting to be issued by the proprietor of New Abu Auto Centre stating therein that the scooter in question was thoroughly tested and was found to have the problem of imbalance which was caused due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle. However, no affidavit of the person who issued the said letter was filed before the State Commission.

In my opinion, the letter dated 19.5.2014 purporting to be issued by the Proprietor of New Abu Auto Centre cannot be taken into consideration since the same was not produced before the District Forum and no application seeking permission to lead additional evidence was produced by the petitioner before the State Commission during pendency of the appeal. The letter, itself, was issued on 19.5.2014 and purports to have been filed pursuant to some observations of the Hon'ble President of the State Commission as is evident from the Memo available on page 62 of the paper-book.

During the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant as to for how many kilometers the vehicle had been driven by the complainant. The learned counsel is unable to provide the requisite information and the complaint does not disclose for how many kilometers the vehicle had been driven by the time the complaint was instituted. Even the memorandum of appeal filed before the State Commission does not disclose for how many kilometers the vehicle had been driven by the date the complaint was instituted. The vehicle in question was purchased in June 2012. It would be highly unfair to direct replacement of the vehicle or refund of the sale consideration after seven years, when the vehicle is admittedly in the custody and possession of the complainant. The State Commission has already allowed the petitioner to get the vehicle repaired at any authorized service centre of the manufacturer at the cost of the manufacturer. The direction given by the State Commission, in my opinion, will more than adequately meet the ends of justice and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.N. Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Ltd. & Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 460] decided on 24.11.2010 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that if independent expert was of the opinion that there were inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle alongwith lifetime tax and EMI with interest and cost as had been directed by the State Commission. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the above-referred judgement in my opinion, is of no help to the complainant since no particular manufacturing defect was even alleged in the complaint and the only problem disclosed in the complaint was that there was imbalance while turning the vehicle with pillion rider on back seat. Moreover, no expert evidence was produced before the District Forum at any point of time during pendency of the complaint.

For the reasons state hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.