SOORAJ AUTOMOBILES LTD. Vs. SHRI BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission ") in Appeals No. 363/2003, Bhanwar Lal Vs. Raj Motors and anr. and Appeal No. 612/2003, Raj Motors Vs. Bhanwar Lal and anr. The said appeals had been made before the State Commission against the order dated 03.01.2003 of District Forum, Jaipur, vide which complaint No. 203 of 2000 filed by Bhanwar Lal, the respondent No.1 was partly accepted. The State Commission in appeals, set aside the order of the District Forum and ordered that the complainant was entitled to receive compensation from the present petitioner M/s. Sooraj Automobiles Ltd., which was respondent No.2 in both the appeals before the State Commission. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent No.1 Bhanwar Lal purchased one Sitara brand diesel Auto from M/s. Raj Motors, who are dealers of the petitioner and impleaded as respondent No.2 in their petition. The said vehicle is stated to have been purchased on 10.09.1995 and it is alleged that it had some manufacturing defect from the beginning itself. The complainant alleged that when he was taking the vehicle to Kishangarh, some sound and wobbling was detected in the left wheel of the vehicle and he took it to the workshop of M/s. Raj Motors/opposite party No.1, who tried to rectify the defect and handed over the same back to him, saying that in case of any problem, he could bring it to their workshop again. The vehicle again developed problem within a week and it was brought to the opposite party No.1 once again. They got a complaint written from him in the name of opposite party No.2 and stated that they were sending the complaint to the workshop of opposite party No.2 at Saharanpur, so that a person could be deputed by opposite party No.2 to rectify the defects in the vehicle. Later on, the complainant wrote many letters to the opposite parties, but without any effect. The complainant got a letter dated 03.02.1996 from opposite party No.2, in which it was stated that the period of warranty of three months after the purchase of the vehicle had already lapsed, but even then the complainant could bring his vehicle for repairs, but at the premises of M/s. Prem Motors, Bharatpur and not at Saharanpur. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum and the District Forum, vide order dated 03.01.2003 directed respondent No.2/opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,973/ - within one month to the complainant and also stated that if the order was not complied with, the complainant will be entitled to receive interest thereon. The petitioner/opposite party No. 2 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ - to the complainant within one month failing which interest will be chargeable. Two appeals were filed against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission - - one by the complainant requesting that he must be awarded compensation against the petitioner/opposite party No.2 as well and the second was preferred by the dealer/opposite party No.1 M/s. Raj Motors, saying that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the compensation should be awarded against the petitioner/opposite party No.2. The learned State Commission, vide impugned order dated 18.04.2007 held that the complainant was entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 1,02,973/ - from the present petitioner along with interest on the said amount @ 12% from 03.01.2003 and also Rs. 2,000/ - as cost of litigation. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. The complainant / respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission on some hearings and also filed a reply dated 19.08.2008 which is on record. However, the complainant stated on 03.08.2012 that he was unable to meet the expenses of appearing from time to time and requested to decide the matter on merits. The respondent No.2 M/s. Raj Motors did not appear even after publication in the newspapers and was ordered to be proceeded against ex -parte.

(3.) THE arguments in this case were heard on 30.04.2013 and the order was kept reserved. However, after examination of the file, it was decided to seek clarification on some issues and the case was again heard on 30.05.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated during arguments on 30.05.2013 that there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and, hence, no liability could be imposed upon the petitioner to provide any compensation etc. However, they were prepared to replace minor parts in the vehicle as a gesture of goodwill, if it was brought to M/s. Prem Motors, Bharatpur. Learned counsel clarified that since the vehicle had become very old, it may not be possible to repair the vehicle, but still they were prepared to replace the minor parts, if the vehicle was brought to them.