Home
Consumer Case Studies
 
Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur

V K Agarwal, President; Smt Veena Misra and R S Awasthi, Members
 
Rajesh Kumar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Agarwal Automobiles & Anr - Respondents
 
Appeal No. 1125/2003 Decided on 2-12-2004
 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Three-Wheeler Delivery Van purchased by Complainant developed defects - Alleging manufacturing defects as engine had to be opened 3 times every month, compensation claimed for repairs and income loss - Vehicle having been purchased for livelihood, Complainant was consumer - Vehicle was purchased in July 1997 and complaint was filed in May 2002 - Engine was alleged to have gone out of order only after 5 months of purchase - Warranty period was six months - No technical evidence to substantiate the contention - Order dismissing complaint, holding no deficiency in service stood proved, called for no interference.
(Paras 4 and 5)
 
Result: Appeal dismissed
 
IMPORTANT POINT

Where vehicle was purchased in July 1997, and the complaint alleging defects in it was filed in May 2002 and no technical evidence was produced to substantiate the contentions, Complainant could not be said to have proved his case.
 
ORDER
 
R S Awasthi, Member - This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum for brevity) in complaint No. 192/2002 on 5/04/2003 dismissing the complaint. The averment of the Complainant is that he purchased one 3­wheeler delivery van manufactured by the OP 2 through OP 1. The vehicle developed several defects after 5 months and engine had to be opened 3 times every month. After inspecting the vehicle, the mechanic advised replacement of engine.
 
2.
It is further stated by the Complainant! Appellant that on being approached, OP 1 said that replacement of engine would require approval of OP 2. He had to change engine, battery, piston, etc and Rs. 30,000/- had to be spent. He has also averred that he had to spend Rs. 250/- for every servicing. A notice was sent to OP 1 but was not replied. A compensation of Rs. 30,000/­towards expenditure on repairs and Rs. 25,000/- as damages or providing a new auto have been prayed. Affidavit and copy of notice sent to OP/Respondents, have been filed.

3.
In reply, the OP 1 has averred that the Complainant had obtained the vehicle for use as a taxi and since the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, he is not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint does not lie. OP 1 has also denied all the allegations stating that there was no assurance for change of engine nor have engine, rings, piston, battery been purchased or replaced. It is also contended that the complaint is time barred. It is also averred by the OP 2 that the warranty was valid for 6 months and the Complainant violated the terms of warranty by failing to get the vehicle serviced as per terms of the warranty. It is specifically denied that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect.

4.
First of all, it is to be decided whether the Complainant is a consumer under the Act. In this regard, the Complainant has specifically stated that he obtained the vehicle for earning his livelihood. Therefore, in our opinion, he is consumer under the Act and purchase of the vehicle for earning his livelihood cannot be termed as commercial purpose.

5.
The vehicle was purchased on 12/07/1997 with a warranty of 6 months while the complaint is filed on 13/05/2002. The Complainant has stated that only after 5 months of purchase, the engine went out of order. Despite the contention that it required repairs 3 times every month, a notice was sent to the OPs on 15/01/2002, well beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, the complaint is filed after a long delay of several years of expiry of limitation. Moreover, there is no technical evidence to substantiate the contention that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect. Even in support of the claim as to the expenditure incurred in repair of the vehicle, no receipt or bills have been produced.

6.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the material on record, we are inclined to hold that there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs 1 & 2 (Respondents) and the impugned order is well founded. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
 
Appeal dismissed