CHITRA OJHA Vs. J M A STORES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Executing hypothecation agreement with respondent no.3 petitioner, having availed finance from aforesaid financer, purchased a Citi Ride Mini Bus on 27th December, 2005 for consideration value of Rs.5,47,708/- from respondent no.1, authorized dealer of respondent no.2. Allegedly during warranty period, problems of poor pickup and high fuel consumption with the vehicle surfaced. Vehicle was taken to the authorized dealer for repairs. Charges of Rs.22,727/- were realized for repairs from petitioner and vehicle in question had been lying with authorized dealer since 10th September, 2007. Eventually a consumer complaint was filed claiming either refund of value of the vehicle or to remove defects and payment of compensation of Rs.1 Lakh, in addition to refund of Rs.22,727/- realized for repairs of the vehicle. Complaint was resisted by respondents holding that after the vehicle was taken to the authorized service center, it was noticed that air cleaners were removed and the vehicle was running without air cleaners. Be that as it may, air cleaners were replaced and fuel injection pump and nozzle were also checked by an outside agency. When vehicle was brought to the authorized service center, complaints were attended to and for the second time when the vehicle was brought it had covered a distance of 60220/- Kms. Refuting attributions about vehicle lying with authorized service center since 10th September, 2007 for repairs, respondents no.1 and 2 resisted claim also on premises that in fact the financer had repossessed vehicle for petitioner not maintaining financial discipline in the matter of payment of installments due, in terms of hypothecation agreement. Though District Forum did not find manufacturing defect with the vehicle but found that there was failure on part of petitioner to abide by warranty conditions for maintenance and check up of the vehicle by authorized service center. District Forum, however, in its wisdom directed respondents no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, in addition to litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. Aforesaid respondents were also directed to refund Rs.7900/- collected from petitioner for repairs during warranty of the vehicle. State Commission noticed that though respondents no.1 and 2 raised valid objections about repossession of vehicle by financer, petitioner had failed to answer the defence taken by them in their statement. No evidence was put on record about respondents no.1 and 2 retaining vehicle in authorized service center since 10th September, 2007, which patently shows suppression of material facts while filing complaint. Be that as it may, despite all this laxity on part of petitioner, District Forum found petitioner eligible for compensation and litigation cost and also to realize repair charges from respondents no.1 and 2, and aforesaid finding was also affirmed by State Commission in appeal. No good evidence was ever placed on record to bring home allegations about inherent manufacturing defect with the vehicle. The concurrent finding recorded by fora below in the circumstances cannot be said to be erroneous requiring our interference in the revision. Revision petition, in the circumstances, being without substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.