LAWS(NCD)-2012-2-17

SHYAMAL GHOSH Vs. KHOKAN AUTO DISTRIBUTORS P LTD

Decided On February 28, 2012
SHYAMAL GHOSH Appellant
V/S
KHOKAN AUTO DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 20.4.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal ( State Commission for short).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts as stated in the complaint are that the petitioner purchased the chasis of a bus from respondent No.1/OP-1 which is the authorized distributor of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 /OPs-2 & 3 with financial assistance of HDFC Bank and paid Rs.6,18,000/-. Thereafter, the body was built incurring a further expenditure of Rs.2,30,000/-. When the petitioner started plying the vehicle on road, it was noticed that there were some problems and defects in the chasis. On several occasions, the petitioner took the bus to the authorized service centre of OP-1 but the problems cropped up again. Alleging manufacturing defect, which could not be removed in spite of repairing during the warranty period, the petitioner filed present consumer complaint seeking refund of the purchase price, compensation, cost and other reliefs. The OPs/respondents resisted the complaint and took objection that the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer because the complainant stated that he had plied the vehicle on road as per road permit granted by the RTA, Darjeeling and that he suffered loss for not doing business.

(3.) The question of maintainability of the complaint was considered by the District Forum initially and by its order dated 16.1.2007, the District Forum held the complaint as maintainable and rejecting the objection taken by the OPs in this regard proceeded further with the matter. In the final judgement dated 30.10.2009 although the District Forum recorded that the defect in the vehicle having arisen within the warranty period the dispute involved in the case does not relate to any commercial purpose, however, on appraisal of the issues and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint for want of proof in regard to the alleged manufacturing defects.