AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J.
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 5.10.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 1041 of 2007 by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission disposed of the appeal of the petitioner No. 1/OP-1.
The brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.1998, the complainant had purchased a vehicle, Voyager from Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd./OP-1 for a sum of Rs.5,04,000/-, with warranty of one year. The vehicle was not running properly, had several faults and on number of occasions, the complainant had taken the vehicle to the workshop during warranty period. The major parts like Engine, Gear box were changed, however, the engineers of the OPs failed to resolve the problem completely. W.e.f. 01.01.2000 upto 31.3.2001, the warranty was also extended. Thereafter, OPs had sent the vehicle to their Zaheerabad plant on 18.11.2000 and after thorough inspection, vehicle was delivered back on 13.01.2001, but the defects continued. Therefore, in the month of September, 2001, complainant had surrendered the vehicle to the authorized dealer/Progressive Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) at Rajkot and the complainant demanded refund of entire money paid for purchase of the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (for short, 'the District Forum').
Both the opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing their separate written versions. The OP-2 submitted that the complainant had never purchased the vehicle from them. The complainant was not a 'Consumer' as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. According to the version of OP 1, the complainant was engaged in business of tours and travels; therefore, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. OP-1 also disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, because part of the cause of action had arisen in Rajkot.
The District Forum, upon hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed both the OPs to pay jointly and severally Rs.5,04,000/- with interest @8% per annum from the month of surrender of vehicle i.e. September 2001 till realization and also awarded Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Being aggrieved, OP-1 filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside. However, the State Commission ordered the OPs to repair the vehicle within 60 days and give certificate to the complainant from an Automobile Engineer, stating that the repair was satisfactory. The State Commission observed that if the OPs failed to repair the vehicle to the full satisfaction of the complainant, then the complainant could get the vehicle repaired at any automobile Centre and the expenses incurred by him would be paid by the OPs. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed this revision petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the OP No. 1. None was present for OP-2. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the vehicle in question was not in a repairable condition and the company had already stopped the manufacture of said model of the vehicle since 2002. The spare parts were not available in the market as well as with the dealer. Therefore, the directions of the State Commission to the OPs to repair the vehicle within 60 days was not possible for both the parties. As the OPs were unable to repair the said vehicle, the only option available was to refund the amount paid by the complainant as he claimed.
Learned counsel for the OP-1 submitted that, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, and vehicle had run 3,8000 km without any problem. The vehicle was used by the complainant for his business of tours and travels, which was a commercial purpose. Moreover, the complainant had failed to produce expert evidence to prove that it was a manufacturing defect. The counsel submitted that OP-2 had replaced the vehicle engine in their Zaheerabad plant at Telangana.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments from both the parties and perused the documents on the file. As per the evidence and record on the file, OP-2 had replaced the old engine to new one and also gave a fresh warranty for the vehicle in question. Prima facie, it was a manufacturing defect but due to non-maintenance of vehicle, the complainant suffered some problems, therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the State Commission.
Section 21 of the Act under which present petition has been filed, confers rather limited jurisdiction unless there is some material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, no interference with the impugned order could be justified. It was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, as reported in 2013 (2) CPR 14 (SC).
On the basis of foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the instant revision petition, therefore, it is dismissed.