MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD Vs. PIYUSH BANGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two separate Revision Petitions have been preferred by the opposite parties in the original complaint (i.e. manufacturer of the vehicle, namely Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. And Authorized Dealer of vehicle, namely Bhilwara Agro Auto Services Pvt. Ltd.), assailing Order dtd. 18/11/2019 passed in FA nos. 725 of 2018 and 742 of 2018 by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, hereinafter referred to as "State Commission', whereby the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum for replacement of the vehicle has been upheld. Consequently, the appeals preferred on behalf of the opposite parties (i.e. the manufacturer as well as the authorized dealer) before the Ld. State Commission were dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent, hereinafter are referred as opposite parties and complainant respectively, as reflected in the original complaint, for sake of convenience.

(3.) The factual matrix as noticed in in the impugned Order may be briefly referred. Complainant purchased Mahindra XUV 500 FWD W8 Model (SUV), bearing registration number R.J.06-UB-6666 manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (opposite party no. 1) from authorized dealer Bhilwara Agro Auto Services Private Ltd. (opposite party no. 2) on 30/8/2013. At the time of purchase complainant was informed that SUV had Supplemental Restraint System and had been provided with six air bags (i.e. one air bag each in front of the driver and passenger sitting on the front seat, two air bags at the sides and two curtain airbags). On 12/5/2015 while complainant was travelling from Bhilwada to Jaipur along with his wife and relatives, the vehicle met with an accident, in order to save a Mopad driver who had carelessly brought the Mopad in front of the vehicle of the complainant. Despite efforts by the driver to control the vehicle, it got unbalanced and collided with a sign board situated on the side of the road, followed with a collision with a stone which was of the dimension of 4 x 2 ft. resulting in severe damage to the vehicle. Despite the severe nature of accident, the Supplemental Restraint System of the SUV failed to work and none of the air bags got deployed/activated. Apart from above complainant alleged that there had been one or the other problem with the vehicle immediately after purchase, including issue of suspension in spite of changing of both the front shockers and suspension by opposite party no.2. Also no satisfactory response was received from opposite party no.2. An amount of Rs.3,75,243.00 is stated to have been incurred for the repair of the vehicle due to damage arising out of the accident.