SRI MOHAN MOTORS Vs. R P SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent -complainant, direction has been given to the appellant -opposite parties to refund the price of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 4,60,000 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., 31.3.2003 till realization by the complainant. The opposite parties have also been directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 on account of litigation expenses.

(2.) THE facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that the opposite party No. 1 is an authorised dealer of Mahendra Automobiles. As the complainant was interested in purchasing 23 -seater mini bus, he contacted the opposite party No. 1. The representative of the opposite party No. 1 showed the model of the vehicle having 23 -seater capacity on paper and assured the delivery of the vehicle in question within 7 days of the deposit made. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the draft of Rs. 4,60,000 being the price of the vehicle to the opposite party No. 1 on 31.3.2003. Thereafter, the delivery of the vehicle was made to the complainant on 10.5.2003 by the opposite party No. 1. The complainant found that the said vehicle was faulted because it was a 15 -seater mini bus which was converted into 23 -seater mini bus by extending the body from outside of the wheels of the vehicle. While driving the mini bus, it was noticed that it had no balance and the driver felt difficulty in locating the direction of the types of the vehicle. Other defect noticed in the vehicle was that chassis was increased and the radiator position was on the back, the engine wood get heated at a normal speed. These defects were brought to the notice of the opposite parties by the complainant with request to change the vehicle. The technical expert of the opposite party No. 1 checked the vehicle and opined that it was not fit for carrying children of the school. The complainant asked the opposite parties to return the amount paid but finding no response from them, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to change the vehicle in question or to pay Rs. 4,60,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. In addition Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation on account of loss and Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and harassment suffered by him as also claimed.

(3.) THE claim was contested by the opposite party who is both, dealer and the manufacturer of the vehicle. In the written statement filed while denying the allegations of the complainant, it was averred that engine and chassis of both the vehicles either of 15 -seater mini bus or 23 -seater mini bus, are same. They further stated that there was no defect in the vehicle at all and a cooked up story has been put up by the complainant. The claim was also resisted on the ground that the vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purpose and for gain and profit and as the complainant is not a consumer, the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum on scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and finding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, awarded compensation noticed earlier by order dated 12.9.2005. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant -opposite parties.