ABHAYA KUMAR PANDA Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant complainant had purchased a Bajaj Auto Trailer from the respondent No. 2 (M/s Utkal Auto, Cuttak) in December, 1988 for self -employment to earn livelihood as a carrier of goods for delivery at different places. As the Bajaj Auto Trailer was found to be defective and had to undergo repairs many times including replacement of chassis he moved the State Commission, Orissa, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a claim of Rs. 1,06,244/ - with pedentilite and future interest at the rate of 12.5% p.a. alongwith loss of income in future of Rs. 3,500/ -p.m. and garage rent of Rs. 250/ - p.m. where the defective auto trailer was remaining parked. The State Commission by its order of 23rd March, 1990 negative the contetnion of the respondents that the appellant complaint had purchased the vehicle for a commercial purpose and therefore was not a consumer and that in consequence the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission in its order of 23.3.1991 came to the finding that the purchase was for self -employment and not for a commercial purpose and therefore the complainant was a consumer and his complaint was maintainable.

(2.) FURTHER the Commission, on facts, found that a defective vehicle was sold to the complainant that the vehicle had some manufacturing defect (the chassis was defective and had to be replaced). In June, 1989 and that the cause of troubles of the vehicle was found to be the defective chassis. The State Commission honestly held that therefore held that there was no intentional defect and that the major defect in the chassis had been removed. It directed the respondent to remove all the other defects in the vehicle within a period of two months free of charge. A compensation of Rs. 50/ - per day was required to be paid by the respondent for each day of delay in repairing within the period of time allowed. A fresh warranty was also be given for a period of one year for the repaired vehicle.

(3.) IT is admitted by the respondents that the chassis was defective and had to be changed apart from the other repairs undertaken from time to time. In other words, the vehicle suffered from a major structural manufacturing defect. As such it should have been condemned by the manufacturers in the first instance itself instead of being sold to any customer. The failure to detect such major manufacturing defect also creates doubts whether the manufacturer has carried out proper quality control and testing of vehicle before delivery. Further when the major manufacturing defect in the vehicles was discovered, the manufacturer should have replaced it instead of repairing it. There is also merit in the contention of the appellant that it is not relevant under the Consumer Protection Act whether the defect in the goods supplied or deficiency in service rendered is intentional or not. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, fixes liability in a species of torts in which intent is not relevant. This Commission find this necessary to emphasis this because the gravity of defects in any goods or deficiency in any service should not be minimized by considering whether or not the defects/deficiencies are intentional.