EICHER MOTORS LTD. Vs. AVINASH SHETYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dtd. 8/11/2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa, Panaji in F.A. No. 25 of 2016, vide which the Appeal filed by the Complainant/Respondent was allowed and the Order of the District Forum was set-aside.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the Complainant acquired an 'Eicher' Tipper Truck, a heavy commercial vehicle, on 30/9/2006, for an amount of Rs.9,48,000.00 from 'Dempo Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd.' (Petitioner No. 2). This vehicle was manufactured by 'Eicher Motor Ltd.' (Petitioner No.1) and registered under No. GA-04-T-3370. Subsequently, the Complainant had the body of the truck fabricated by M/s Gajanan Engineers, Bicholim Industrial Estate, incurring a cost of Rs.1,15,000.00. The truck was purchased through a loan from a financial institution, constraining the Complainant to pay a monthly instalment of Rs.23,260.00 to the said institution. The vehicle came with a warranty covering the aggregates of the truck for 18 months or 1,50,000 kilometres or 2000 hours of engine operation, whichever would occur earlier. Commencing from 10/10/2006, the Complainant engaged the vehicle for the transportation of ore with 'Dempo Mining Corporation Private Limited', earning an average of Rs.3,500.00 per day from its use. However, the vehicle experienced recurrent breakdowns, primarily due to a defective engine, which proved to be irreparable. Additionally, various components such as the headlights assembly, hoses, clutch disc assembly, and clutch cover assembly required frequent replacement. Services rendered by Petitioner No. 1 were consistently delayed, resulting in prolonged periods of inactivity for the vehicle. Inquiries made with other owners of similar vehicles indicated that they also faced losses due to frequent breakdowns of their vehicles. Moreover, doubts were cast on the technology employed in the manufacturing of the said vehicle by the manufacturers themselves. Hence, in comparison to similar vehicles of alternative makes, the present vehicle appeared defective and exhibited technical failures. Consequently, the Complainant suffered significant financial losses as the vehicle had to be consistently taken to the dealer's garage for repairs, rendering it unusable with Petitioner No. 2. As a result, the Complainant experienced earnings loss for at least 35 days till the Complainant issued a Legal Notice on 10/8/2007. The failure of the Petitioners to honour the warranty and provide timely service resulted in the said vehicle being rendered idle and unusable in the dealer's garage. Such situation left the Complainant without any income, consequently impeding his ability to fulfil the instalment payments to the financing institution from which the loan for the truck's purchase was procured. Aggrieved by the acts of the Petitioners, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, North Goa.

(3.) The District Forum vide its Order dtd. 7/3/2016 dismissed the Complaint. The relevant extracts of the said Order are set out as below '