HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED Vs. ASHOK NARAYAN PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the parties present. Both the Fora have decided this case in favour of the complainant and against the OPs. Sh. Ashok Narayan Pawar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dhule, Maharashtra, purchased 4 Ambassador cars from the OPs- M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. Calcutta-OP-1, M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd., New Delhi- OP-2 through the Kailas Agencies (P) Ltd. OP-3, on 12th June 1998. In one of the Cars, bearing No. MH-18-E/400, Sh. Ashok Narayan Pawar- the Complainant was going with other officers to visit percolation tank of Abhanpur Tq.Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. Out of blue, the car suddenly caught fire, in engine. The lives of all the above said officers, including the complainant were saved. Information was given to the fire brigade. However, before the fire brigade reached there, the car was wholly burnt. The Police were informed. The Police prepared the Panchnama on the same day. The vehicle was totally burnt and reduced to ashes. The OPs were informed. The OPs were asked to replace the car which was burnt within 4 months from the date of purchase, due to manufacturing defect.

(2.) The defense set up by the OPs was that this case entails complicated questions and the complainants should be directed to approach the Civil Court. The complainants selected the car after conducting the road test before buying the same. The car was free from defect. They denied knowledge about the incident. It is contended that the burning of the car is not covered by the terms of warranty. There is no report of the expert regarding the manufacturing defect. The car might have caught fire due to reason, other than manufacturing defect i.e. the negligence on the part of the complainant or any other employee. The relationship between the appellant and OP-3 Kailas Agency Pvt. Ltd. is on 'principle to principle' basis.

(3.) Opposite Party No. 3 contended that there was no complaint regarding the manufacturing defect at the time of servicing of the vehicle which was carried out on 23.08.98. It was denied that there is a manufacturing defect. Both the Fora below directed the OPs to replace the car in favour of the complainant.