EICHER MOTORS LTD. Vs. MAHENDRA NIRMAL KUMAR NIRMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Counsel appearing on both sides. The present appeal arises out of an order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State awarding a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs plus interest thereon @ 18%. The respondent No. 1 had raised a grievance that the engine of the vehicle which was purchased on 3rd October, 1992 and which became roadworthy after construction of body thereon in February, 1993 had seized on 27th April, 1993 and that the engine suffered from manufacturing defects which needed to be remedied. The vehicle was inspected by two different Inspectors of appellant on two occasions first on 28.4.1993 by an Inspector and thereafter on 8th of May, 1993. Each of them had opined that the overheating of engine was responsible for the defects in the pistons of two of the cylinders and such over -heating was the result of the complainant having replaced the genuine radiator cap with a spurious one by buying it from the local market which did not have the adequate safeguards to prevent overheating and vaporation of the coolant.

(2.) THEREAFTER , while the matter was still pending before the State Commission orders were passed for having the vehicle inspected by an independent agency namely Western India Automobiles Association. But before any inspection could be carried out the vehicle was towed away by the dealer respondent No. 3 to another site about 52 kms. away which was a petrol pump owned by his brother. The complainant took his representatives and photographer to take inspection of the truck at Atkot where the said vehicle was garraged and discovered to his dismay that even the engine and various other parts have been removed and an application to that effect was filed before the State Commission which resulted in passing of the order dated 10th February, 1994. The opposite party -appellant herein did not file any affidavit or response in rebuttal to the application of the complainant although it was duly served with a copy thereof before the matter came up for hearing on 4th March, 1994.

(3.) THE State Commission proceeded to return the findings without returning any findings as to whether the engine or the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect which finding was absolutely essential to enable to State Commission to award any compensation against the manufacturer. Even to award compensation and to quantify it, there had to be basis or certain material which is not indicated in the impugned judgment. In that view of the matter we consider it appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the State Commission with the directions that the question of manufacturing defect and the consequent compensation should be gone into on the basis of evidence adduced or to be adduced by the parties before it. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission.