MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED Vs. NAZIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 12.2.2001 in Complaint No. 48/99 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the Distt. Forum for short) directing the appellants to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 2,99,790/ - with interest @ 12% per annum as well as Rs. 1,000/ - towards cost of the complaint.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the appellants are manufacturers of the vehicles truck, jeep and matadors etc. The respondent No. 2 is the dealer of the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 purchased a vehicle matador model Cab king D.I. 3150 on 24.12.1997 for Rs. 2,99,792/ - from the appellant s dealer -respondent No. 2. The said vehicle was got duly registered with the R.T.O., Raipur, and was given Registration No. MP 23 D.A. 4650.

(3.) THE complainant averred that the said vehicle started developing troubles after a few months of purchase. There was fault in the brakes as well as in the gear. The complaints regarding the faults as above were lodged by the complainant with the dealer respondent No. 2. It was further averred that on 5th May, 98, four spring leaves of the said vehicle broke down, which were got replaced by the complainant after purchasing the same from the market. It was further averred that in November, 1998, there was defect in the gear box and the fifth gear stopped working. Subsequently, on 28.11.1998, the third and fourth gears also started malfunctioning and thereafter on 4.12.1998, the gear box completely went out of order. The complainant/respondent No. 1 reported the matter to the authorised service centre of the appellants -Preet Motors, Nandini Road, Bhilai. However, the vehicle continues to be standing there and as it could not be repaired and become non -functional. It was averred that the said service centre informed the complainant that the replacement of the parts is not possible as the said model is no longer being manufactured by the appellants and, therefore, the vehicle cannot be repaired. The complainant averred that since the vehicle developed defects during the warranty period for which the appellants are responsible, it was prayed that the price of the vehicle be refunded to the complainant and cost of the complaint be awarded.