FORCE MOTORS LIMITED Vs. SHANTARAM NAMDEO LONARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Nashik in Consumer Complaint No. 128/2006 decided on 30.8.2007, whereby, while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed both the opposite parties to refund amount of Rs. 6,25,000 within thirty days and also to pay Rs. 75,000 within thirty days and for delay beyond thirty days further directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the aggrieved O.Ps. have filed this appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY case of the parties in the Forum below is that the complainant is owner of Ford Motors passenger vehicle. He purchased it on 6.9.2004 from O.P.No.2UjwalAgencies,Nashik for the amount of Rs. 6,25,000 which was manufactured by Force Motors Limited (erstwhile Bajaj Tempo Limited). The said vehicle bearing No. MH -15 -AK -236 was having warranty of thirty six months or upto 3 lacs kms distance whichever is earlier. The said passenger vehicle was registered with R.T.O. for carrying passengers of 17 +1. In the course of warranty, the vehicle was taken for servicing at the garrage of Ujwal Agencies. It was found that chassis was broken and at the broken place welding was done. On 15.11.2005, the vehicle used to take jump at one side. The complainant was having contract of carrying employees of Advance Biochemicals Limited, M.I.D.C. Sinnar from Nashik to Sinnar and back and according to the complainant the vehicle was having manufacturing defect which could not be removed despite servicing. Hence, he filed consumer complaint for replacement of the vehicle or alternatively for refund of price of the said vehicle and for compensation and cost.

(3.) THE O.Ps filed written statement and pleaded that during course of warranty the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. They also pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect of whatsoever nature and every time when the vehicle was brought for servicing appropriate servicing was given to the complainant. Job cards would reveal that the complainant had run the vehicle upto 1,50,000 kms and such a vehicle cannot be said tobe having any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. They denied that the complainant suffered huge damage due to non -plying of the vehicle for pretty long time because of manufacturing defect and therefore he is entitled to get amount of Rs. 75,000 from them. They further took up the plea that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose and that he had employed a driver to ply this vehicle and therefore he cannot be said to be a 'consumer' within a meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986.