LAWS(NCD)-2011-8-72

SHUKLA GHOSH Vs. JALAN DISTRIBUTORS

Decided On August 11, 2011
Shukla Ghosh Appellant
V/S
Jalan Distributors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment rendered by the State Commission, West Bengal in Complaint bearingNo.SC Case 45/0/98. By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the complaint.

(2.) The appellant is the original complainant. The appellant purchased a Maruti 800 CC Car on 25.1.1997 from the respondent No. 1. The Chassis of the car bore No. 1079170. The car vehicle was produced at the workshop of the respondent No. 1 (M/s. Jalan Distributors) at Kolkata on two occasions i.e. firstly on 8.2.1997 and secondly on 16.4.1997 for conducting after- sales inspection and service. The respondent No 1 had issued free inspection/ service coupons for the purpose. The respondent No. 1, after the inspection, informed the appellant that the steering wheel, steering gear box, rods and arms, etc., were in order and no repair work was required.

(3.) The Appellant's case before the State Commission was that on 17.5.1997, her husband was returning in the car vehicle from Alipore Court back home. The driver of the car was on the steering wheel. All of a sudden, the car got swerved towards left side and could not be controlledby the driver. The car vehicle violently dashed against a road-side tree. The impact was so heavy that the entire frontal part of the vehicle was smashed. Her husband and the driver were injured. Some passers-by tookboth the injured to a near-by Nursing Home. Her husband was required to incur heavy medical expenditure for proper treatment and care. So also, the damage to the vehicle was excessive and needed lot of expenditure. The accident was the result of inherent defect in the steering wheel of the car vehicle. The steering pinion used in the steering system assembly of the car was defective and, therefore, the accident occurred due to mechanical defect. The appellant alleged that such an accident could not have occurred if the respondents had taken due care to remove the manufacturing defect. Consequently, the appellant sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 from the respondents.