SWARAJ MAZDA LTD Vs. P K CHAKKAPPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Swaraj Mazda Light Commercial Vehicle from the appellant which was delivered to him on 8.1.1992. Since this vehicle did not meet the necessary requirement, like that of a sleeper cabin, necessary to obtain the licence from the licensing authority, on a request being made by the complainant, a vehicle with sleeper cabin was supplied to the complainant on 26.6.1992. On the ground that this vehicle has serious problems and defects which were not being removed, a complaint was filed before the District Forum on 20.9.1992. The District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed this complaint vide its order dated 25.8.1994.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the appellant, Swaraj Mazda has filed this appeal before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. What we find is that while filing a complaint before the District Forum, Ernakulam which was dismissed on 25.8.1994, no allegation about any manufacturing defect or any problem with the engine has been referred to and secondly while this complaint was pending, the second complaint before the State Commission was filed in 1993 itself but there is no reference whatsoever about the complaint already filed pending before the District Forum. We also see that as alleged by the complainant, first time the two tyres bursted out were on 4.9.1992 and the complaint before the District Forum was filed on 26.9.1992 yet there is no mention of this episode in the complaint filed before the District forum. Both these facts leave us with clear impression that the complainant did not approach the Consumer Fora with clean hands. Be that this it may, there are two parts of the complaint-one relates to the defects in chassis of the vehicle purchased and second relates to manufacturing defect in the Engine. As per record available on the file, we see no difficulty in appreciating that there were indeed problems with the chassis; perhaps as a result of this defect there were continuous problem of bursting of tyres and the vehicle tilting on one side. However, we are somehow unable to appreciate that in the order passed by the State Commission dated 1.12.1995 which is under challenge before us, not much consideration has been shown to the two letters dated 20.1.1993 and 27.2.1993 which are on record. These letters were addressed to the complainant about the appellant's willingness to replace the chassis, which is very important as there was problem with the chassis, but it is the complainant who declined this offer. As far as the defects in the engine is concerned, after going through the job cards on record, we are unable to appreciate as to how the State Commission arrived at the conclusion which it did, about manufacturing defects. We get the impression that the important ground it relied upon to do so is the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by it. We have gone through this report very carefully and two points arise-one, the justification for appointing a Surveyor and loss assessor as a Local Commissioner and second, no involvement of at least second respondent, that is the dealer, at the time of inspection of vehicle.