ANSAR PASHA Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 25.1.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short 'State Commission'). Vide impugned order, appeal filed by the respondents against order dated 8.7.2009 passed by District Forum, Chitradurga, was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts are that petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short as 'Act') through its Attorney Sh. Mohammed Ishaqh, on the allegations that he has purchased Lorry bearing No. KA-18-A/2475 on 18.3.2008 for Rs. 11,53,454 from respondents/OPs. The said Lorry was got body built by spending Rs. 2,40,000. After getting the body built of the said vehicle, petitioner got it registered in RTO on 14.5.2008. Thereafter, on 11.6.2008 he has given power of Attorney to one Sh. Mohammed Ishaqh in respect of the said Lorry. After registration of the vehicle, the Attorney holder began to run the Vehicle as per instructions given in the operators sendee book. Thereafter, on 29.7.2008 engine of the said vehicle broke down and it started giving trouble and become unuseful. He took the said vehicle to respondent No. 3, the authorized service centre for service and repair. The said vehicle was fitted with new engine and entire engine assembly was also changed. Thereafter, the said vehicle used to give trouble again and again. The main problem in the vehicle is of leakage in radiator since beginning and when assembly of radiator was replaced by new one the engine got seized and it was replaced by new engine. There has been problems in the vehicle, one or the other, since the date of its purchase. Since, there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle which was sold by the respondents it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.

(3.) Respondents in their written statement have stated that petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts, as the vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner to a third person way back on 11.6.2008 and petitioner has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Ishfaqh on 11.6.2008. Petitioner later on, filed another Power of Attorney dated 18.3.2009, in which Clause 9, which stated about the vehicle having been sold to third party, was deleted. This conduct of the petitioner speaks itself and he has not only suppressed the vital information but has also presented fabricated documents to cover up the issue of transfer to the third party.