MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD Vs. B G THAKURDESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an appeal against the order dated 5.10.1991 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Bombay in Complaint No. 17 of 1991. The complaint was filed by the present Respondent No. 1 Mr. B.G. Thakurdesal against the present Appellant and present Respondent No. 2 Mr. Dadajee Dhackjee. The Appellant is the Manufacturer of motor vehicle i.e. 'MM 540 Jeep' while Respondent No. 2 is their Dealer. The Complainant purchased a MM 540 Jeep from Respondent No. 2 on 13th November, 1990 against payment of Rs. 2,11,042/- vide receipt dated 10th November, 1990 issued by the Dealer. According to the Complainant the, vehicle had some electrical fault on account of which bulbs started getting burnt after one or two days. The Dealer carried out some repairs. In the last week of November, 1990 the Complainant found that the vehicle had started giving noise. On checking it was found that the engine oil level had gone below danger mark due to excessive consumption of the engine oil by the engine of the vehicle. The vehicle was thereafter taken to the Dealer. After two days the Complainant received intimation on telephone that the vehicle had been repaired. The Complainant took delivery of the vehicle. He was asked by the Engineer of the Dealer to bring it back for joint inspection after trial running of the vehicle for 600 to 700 kilometers. On 14th December, 1990 the vehicle was again taken to the Dealer. On inspection it was again found that there was excessive engine oil consumption. The Complainant left the vehicle with the Dealer with a request to replace the same. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote a couple of letters to the Dealer as well as to the Manufacturer but did not receive any reply. On 21st January, 1991 he received a reply from the Dealer intimating the fact of changing the complete engine assembly of the said vehicle and he was asked to take the delivery. The Complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle apprehending that it might again start giving trouble. He, however, filed a complaint before the State Commission in which he claimed about replacement of the old vehicle by new vehicle plus Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation or in the alternative refund of the price.

(2.) The case of the Opposite Party was that the engine had started giving noise as the Complainant did not check the level of engine oil and the level went below the danger mark. It was further pleaded that the engine was changed as a special case and as a matter of goodwill.

(3.) The State Commission came to the opinion that if the engine had no defect. There was no reason for the Opposite Party to replace the same and the replacement of the engine was indicative of the fact that it had defect in its manufacturing. The State Commission also found that the Complainant had real apprehension that the defective motor vehicle was supplied to him by the Opposite Party. In view of the above findings, the State Commission ordered the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 2,11,042/- to the Complainant towards the price of the Jeep with interest @ 16.5% per annum from 10th November, 1990 till payment. The Opposite Parties were allowed to take back the Jeep in question. The claim of the Complainant for compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh was, however, rejected as there was no convincing evidence on the point of loss of business of the Complainant or mental torture to him.