EITCHER MOTORS LIMITED Vs. P N RANDIVE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent had purchased a vehicle manufactured by the appellant on 29.9.1992. The warranty was for one year. Sometime, on 10.7.1993 the connecting rod of the vehicle was broken for which repairs were got carried out by the respondent. Since this amount was neither reimbursed nor vehicle replaced as it was the case of the respondent that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle, a complaint came to be filed before the State Commission praying for the cost of replacement as well as Rs. 2,23,000/- towards expenses incurred by the respondent-complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record admitted the claim partially and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 1,43,000/- alongwith interest @ 12%. Aggrieved by this Order, the respondent before the State Commission had filed this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. There is no disputing fact that the connecting rod of the vehicle was found broken when it was inspected by the representative of the appellant Company. It was not replaced as it was the case of the appellant that the damage has been caused on account of the fact that the vehicle remained under flood water and the damage was caused by the hydraulic pressure. There is no disputing fact that the rod was found broken and no material has been brought on record by the appellant to satisfy us that this was on acount of any hydraulic pressure. It is a settled law that if a part can be replaced for any damage caused within the warranty period, then the replacement of vehicle shall not be necessary unless the case is proven to be that of manufacturing defect. In this case at the stage of arguments, the case is made out that there was seizure of engine which does not find a mention in the complaint. The learned Counsel for the appellant was candid enough that they are willing to replace the rod or pay for the cost of the rod which comes to about Rs. 6,000/-. No case of seizure of engine was mentioned in the complaint, hence we cannot look into this aspect at this stage. We direct the appellant to pay the cost of rod alongwith interest at the rate of 10% from 10.7.1993 till the date of payment. We also see from the complaint and it is not disputed that when the complainant on direction from the second appellant on instruction from the first appellant, took the vehicle to Dempo Marketing Co. Ltd. in Goa, they did not carry out the repairs as there was no instructions from the appellant. Dempo Marketing Co. Ltd. did not look into the vehicle as they wanted the presence of the representative of the first appellant which never materialised. Hence in the mean time the necessary repairs were got carried out by the complainant. In our view not attending to the vehicle and carrying out replacement of the rod within the warranty period is a clear case of deficiency in service on account of which for almost a month and a half the vehicle was out of action. On account of deficiency in services rendered by the appellant, the complainant needs to be compensated for not attending on the fault for a long time which was caused within the warranty period. In our view it appears to be just and equitable if the appellant pays Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service by not attending the vehicle. As a result the complainant shall pay the cost of the connecting rod which was Rs. 6,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% as already directed as also compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The case of the complainant of there being a manufacturing defect not being established hence need for replacement of vehicle is rejected. In view of our above direction, to compensate for the rod replacement, the whole question of getting the testing or otherwise by IIT, Powai also loses its importance. The appeal is partly allowed. The respondent-complainant shall also be entitled for the cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the appellant. Appeal partly allowed.