MANAGING DIRECTOR PREMIER LIMITED Vs. B. RAMANJANEYULU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The manufacturer of Road Star2500 which is the first opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum has challenged the order of the District Forum by way of filing the present appeal. The first respondent purchased the car on 13-07-2006 by paying margin money of Rs. 40,000/- on the same day and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,67,904/- on 31-08-2006 through financier i.e, the third respondent herein. The second respondent who is the dealer of the appellant company delivered the car on 1-09-2004 to the first respondent. The first respondent claimed the car defective whereas the appellant denied any manufacturing defect in the car.

(2.) The first respondent filed the complaint stating that the vehicle undergone several repairs such as replacement of clutch plates on 19.9.2006, 25.9.2006, the suspension was broken and was repaired on 18.11.2006, frame axle broken on 16.10.2006, shock absorber on 16.11.2006, suspension on 24.11.2006, clutch brakes on 28.11.2006 and the brakes on 26.11.2006. On 27.11.2006 the first respondent noticed that the chassis of the vehicle developed crack and the vehicle was abruptly stopped. The vehicle was kept idle since 27.11.2006 and it was brought to the notice of the appellant company and the respondent no.2. No action was taken by them. The first respondent had given representation and thereafter got issued notice dated 21.12.2006. Reply dated 29.1.2007 by the appellant company and reply on 10.1.2007 by the second respondent were issued to the notice of the first respondent. TATA Engineering, Bellary inspected the vehicle and observed that the chassis was broken as also it developed a crack due to manufacturing defect.

(3.) The appellant company resisted the claim contending that the respondent no.1 is not a consumer as defined by the provisions of the consumer protection Act. It is contended that there were no occasions nor several repairs as contended by the first respondent and the vehicle for the first time was brought to the second respondent on 6.12.2006 with the complaint of the chassis braking into pieces. The second respondent deputed its engineers who inspected the vehicle and found that the vehicle front engine setting cross member and oil pan was damaged due to the vehicle hitting a stone. On receiving mail from the second respondent, the appellant company deputed its engineers to inspect the vehicle. The engineers found the vehicle locked and the first respondent refused to handover the keys of the vehicle to them. The warranty does not apply to any repair or replacement caused as a result of the accident. There are no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The first respondent did not follow the advice for handling the vehicle and due to his negligence problems the vehicle came across. The second respondent rectified the problems as and when reported by the first respondent. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant company and the second respondent.