HULLAS JAIN Vs. ATUL VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid three appeals filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") are being decided by this common judgment is in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved and further, the parties involved are the same and the claim made by the complainant-respondent pertains to the same vehicle and they arise out of the common order dated 17.9.2001 passed by the learned District Forum, Barmer in Complaint Case Nos. 127, 128 and 129/2000 by which the complaints filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 were allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to change the body, diesel tank, bonnet and defective tyre of the vehicle-Tata Sumo of the complainant-respondent.

(2.) It may be stated here that on 25.8.1999, the complainant-respondent had purchased a vehicle Tata Sumo (Engine No. 483 DL 45 GQQ 747873 and chassis No. 385003 GQQ 913760) from the appellant No. 1 for Rs. 4,09,823. The complainant-respondent had paid Rs. one lac in cash and the remaining amount was to be paid by him in 35 monthly instalments of Rs. 12,800 each. The vehicle in question carried a warranty for 18 months. The case of the complainant-respondent was that within one month of its purchase, cracks were found in the body of the vehicle in question and on 7.10.1999, when the cracks in the body of the vehicle in question were shown to the appellant No. 1, the same were got repaired by the appellant No. 1. Thereafter, the cracks again appeared in the body of the vehicle in question. The further case of the complainant-respondent was that diesel tank of the vehicle in question was also cracked and cracks also appeared in the tyres. The complainant-respondent requested the appellants to change the body, diesel tank, bonnet and tyres of the vehicle in question, but the appellants declined to do so. Hence, the following three complaints were filed by the complainant-respondent before the District Forum, Barmer:

(3.) A reply was filed by the appellants denying the averments made in the complaints. It was further submitted by the appellants there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and hence, the complaints deserve to be dismissed.