Home
Consumer Case Studies
 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
 
M B Shah, President; Mrs Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
 
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Sukhthankar & Ors – Respondent
 
First Appeal No. 441 of 1995 Decided on 16.02.2004
 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 & 17 - Jeep-Armada, purchased by Complainant on 01-06-1993 was alleged to be defective - State Commission in the complaint appointed Chartered Engineer to inspect vehicle & submit his report & Commission submitted report pointing out defects - State Commission directed Appellant-Manufacturer to refund price Rs. 2,67,997/- of vehicle with compensation of Rs. 25,000 - Appeal - Vehicle had been used for 55,000 kms on the date of inspection - Defects however had been pointed out to the dealer as well as the manufacturer at the earliest - Some amount was required to be deducted towards use of vehicle while ordering refund of its price - Considering major defects pointed out by Engineer, one fourth of amount to be deducted towards use of vehicle - Appellant to refund Rs. 2 lacs with interest as directed by State Commission.

Result: Appeal allowed partly.
 
IMPORTANT POINT
 
In a complaint regarding defects in vehicle purchased by complainant, if considering major defects found in vehicle, its price is required to be repaid by manufacturer to complainant, some deduction is to be made towards use of vehicle where it had run a considerable mileage when defects were found.
 
ORDER
 
M B Shah, J President - This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 14-08-1995 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No.7 of 1994.

The brief facts are that the Complainant had purchased a jeep, Armada, manufactured by M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, on 1-6-1993 for Rs. 2,67,997/- for his family use. It is his say that the jeep was defective from the date of its purchase. In response to his letter dated 13-06-1994, one Mr Godrej had attended to the vehicle on 18-06-1994. The Complainant further says that some parts were replaced twice or thrice. When there was no improvement in the functioning of the Jeep, he filed a complaint before the State Commission, Goa, for a direction to the manufacturer for refund of the price of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., or in the alternative replacement of the old vehicle with a new one, Rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation and a direction to the dealer, Opposite Party No.5, to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for his failure to give proper service.

During the course of hearing, the State Commission appointed Mr M P Vernekar, Chartered Engineer, as Commissioner, to inspect the vehicle and submit his report. The Commissioner examined the vehicle on 30-03-1995 and found the following defects:
 
1.
The Crown Pinion Assembly was found defective;

2.
The colour had faded;

3.
Brake Assembly system was found not working and defective;

4.
The Recliner of driver seat was not working;

5.
The steering wheel of the vehicle was jammed up and it was not returning back to normal on turnings;

6.
Oil level in the Crown Pinion was found at 1.2 litres as against recommended 1.5 litres;

7.
The wheel disc assembly in front was found abnormally wobbling beyond permissible limits, thus, making it unsafe to drive the vehicle.

The Opposite Parties filed their objections to the report before the State Commission. The State Commission disbelieved the objection of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had deliberately tampered with the vehicle to ensure a favourable report from the Commissioner. The State Commissioner further observed that the objections filed by the Opposite Parties against the report of the Commissioner, were filed only for the sake of filing objections and there was no substance in them. On the basis of the evidence, the State Commissioner further held that the vehicle was purchased for personal use and not for commercial use.

Upon hearing both the parties, adverting to the evidence placed before it by way of affidavits, and placing reliance more particularly on the report of the Commissioner, the State Commission found deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and directed the Opposite Party No.1, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Bombay, to refund a sum of Rs. 2,67,997/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation, within 30 days from the receipt of the order and to take back the vehicle in question from the Complainant. It was also directed that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation and to pay to the Complainant Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the State Commission, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that considering the report of the Commissioner, it cannot be held that there was any manufacturing defect so as to direct the Appellant to refund the entire amount of the vehicle. He further submits that the vehicle had been extensively used by the Complainant and he had run the vehicle for over 55,000 kms at the time of inspection, and that the Appellant was informed only after a lapse of one-and-half years. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Tata Engg & Locomotive Co Ltd & Anr vs Gajanan Y Mandrekar.

As against this, Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that there were manufacturing defects and, therefore, the award passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.

In our view, in the present case, admittedly the vehicle was used for 55,000 krns on the date of inspection. No doubt, as per the Engineer's report, there were major defects. For these defects, Complainant informed the dealer at the earliest and the dealer was not in a position to rectify the same. Thereafter Appellant was informed. Hence, it cannot be said that Complainant had not taken appropriate steps in informing the concerned person. At the same, during the proceedings, vehicle was admittedly kept in use and under these circumstances, proportionate deduction for the use of the vehicle is required to be given. In the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive (Supra), the vehicle was used on the date of Complaint for 9,000 kms and thereafter at the time of inspection it had covered a distance of 65,000 krns and in that set of circumstances, the Apex Court directed that 1/3rd of the compensation awarded by the Commission may be deducted towards the use of the vehicle for the period in question. Applying the similar principal, the impugned order passed by the State Commission requires to be modified. However, considering the major defects pointed out by the Engineer, one fourth of the amount be deducted towards the use of the vehicle.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that instead of refunding an amount of Rs. 2,67,997/-, the Appellant shall refund Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest, compensation and costs as directed by the State Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
Appeal allowed partly.