HIND MOTORS INDIA LIMITED Vs. LAKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will decide two appeals namely First AppealNo. 1007 of 2007, Hind Motors India Limited v. Lakhbir Singh and Others and First Appeal No. 1033 of 2007, Tata Motors Limited v. Lakhbir Singh & Ors., as both the appeals are directed against the same impugned order dated 15.6.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short the 'District Forum'). For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from First Appeal No. 1007 of 2007 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.

(2.) LAKHBIR Singh, respondent No. 1 had purchased Tata Safari bearing Registration No. PB -12 -H -7840 from the appellants on 2.1.2006 for an amount of Rs. 12,70,000. It was got insured by him for the period from 2.1.2006 to 1.1.2007. The vehicle was manufactured in July, 2005. There was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and it was old as well as used vehicle. Immediately after its purchase, the vehicle started developing technical snags. It was brought to the notice of the appellants. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the appellants 15 days after it was purchased. It was checked by the Engineer of the appellants and he noticed some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, the defects could not be removed. Then respondent No. 1 took the vehicle to the workshop of the appellants on 29.8.2006 and the vehicle was handed over to them. The appellants issued the Job Card with estimated repair amount as Rs. 2,25,000. He was harassed by the appellants for about 8 months by giving defective vehicle. Respondent No. 1 sent letter dated 6.12.2006 to Tata Motors, respondent No. 2 requesting for the change of vehicle. In response, the appellants sent a letter dated 12.12.2006 pointing out that some alterations were got made from unauthorized dealers by respondent No. 1 in the vehicle. Hence respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the appellants and respondent No. 2 in the learned District Forum, Ropar seeking replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. besides the amount of compensation and costs.

(3.) THE appellants filed the written reply. Besides preliminary objections, the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the complaint was false and not maintainable. Respondent No. 1 has got it repaired from an unauthorized person, and, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The appellants had brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 vide their letter dated 12.12.2006 that there were unauthorized alterations in the vehicle. Respondent No. 1 was liable to pay estimated cost of repairs of his vehicle. The estimates were also given by different workshops to respondent No. 1. Since respondent No. 1 had got certain parts of his vehicle repaired from unauthorized persons, therefore, the warranty clause will not apply. It was admitted that respondent No. 1 had brought his vehicle to the workshop of appellants on 29.8.2006 for repairs. An estimate was given by the appellants to respondent No. 1 but respondent No. 1 had neither instructed the appellants to repair the vehicle nor he picked up the vehicle. The vehicle was still lying in the premises of the appellants. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 200 per day towards garage charges. Legal notice was served on respondent No. 1 onl5.1.2007 to pay this amount. It was denied if the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect or if it was manufactured in July, 2005 or if it was an old/used vehicle. No information was givenby respondent No. 1 to the appellants about any defect in the vehicle prior to 29.8.2006 nor it was brought to their workshop. The letter dated 12.12.2006 was issued by the appellants correctly. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.