LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2011-9-1

TEREX VECTRA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MEHARCHAND

Decided On September 12, 2011
Terex Vectra Private Limited Appellant
V/S
Meharchand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 -complainant purchased a TX760 Backhoe Loader manufactured by the appellant from the concerned dealer on 29.11.2007. It has been alleged that within three months of the purchase the vehicle developed certain defects and the same was taken to the authorised dealer on 15.2.2008. As per the job card some parts were replaced. The vehicle was again taken to the dealer on 7.3.2008 and some more parts were replaced. The vehicle had further been checked on 1.6.2008 and 5.7.2008 and some more repairs were done. Immediately the complaint was submitted before the District Forum, Alwar. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 22.7.2011 directed the appellant and the concerned dealer either to replace the vehicle by giving the complainant a new vehicle of the same make or in the alternative may make the payment of the vehicle as per the purchase bill. The complainant was also allowed Rs. 3000 as mental agony and other expenses with interest.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. It was only due to negligent handling of the vehicle by the complainant, the defects developed and the repairs were done accordingly. The District Forum has observed that as per the job card itself there had been major defects in the vehicle and the replacement of the parts were made accordingly not once but thrice within seven months of the purchase of the vehicle. The District Forum further observed that there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of the appellant that the vehicle was not handled properly by the complainant. In our opinion also as per the job card the main parts of the vehicle had been replaced. There appears to be an inherent mechanical defect in the vehicle itself.

(3.) HAVING considered all the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no error or illegality in the findings and discretions used by the District Forum so as to call for any further interference in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.