RAKESH NEGI Vs. SAI AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the complainant is directed against the order dated 03.05.2010 of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been dismissed on the ground that he failed to produce any evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint.

(2.) APPELLANT purchased a vehicle known as 'Trax Cargo ', on 09.01.2007, from Rampur branch of Sai Automobiles, respondent No.1, against Annexure C -1. He paid a price of Rs.4.80 lacs. There was three years warranty for the vehicle. Within a few days of the purchase of the vehicle, it started giving trouble. It pertained to the ignition of the vehicle as also the excessive fuel consumption. Matter was brought to the notice of the respondent No.1, who allegedly replaced the fuel pump saying that the same was defective. Vehicle gave satisfactory service but only for a few days, after the replacement of the pump, and again it started giving same trouble. Vehicle was again taken to the workplace of respondent No.1, who carried out repair. Again, the vehicle started giving trouble. On 19.02.2007, appellant took the vehicle to the workplace of respondent No.1, who advised that the same be taken to the workplace of pump manufacturer at Chandigarh. Vehicle was taken there and the pump was replaced, but a few days later, again the vehicle started giving the same trouble. Fed up with the defect/problem in the vehicle, which could not be rectified, despite repeated visits and complaints, the appellant left the vehicle at the workplace of respondent No.1, sometime in the month of April, 2007. Ever since the vehicle has been lying with respondent No.1, who is alleged to have not only not repaired it, but is also alleged to have not bothered to contact the appellant. Respondent No.2 was impleaded in the capacity of the manufacturer of the vehicle.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.2, the manufacturer, denied its liability and stated that its relationship with respondent No.1 was on principal to principal basis. It denied that respondent No.1 was its agent or dealer.