RAMESH CHANDER VARMA Vs. SAIRAM TATA MOTOTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Complainant being aggrieved of concurrent finding of the District Forum, Durg and the State Commission, Chhattishgarh resulting in dismissal of his consumer complaint No.CC/14/95 has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition is that on 31st December, 2013 the complainant/petitioner purchased one car make Indigo from the opposite party. According to the complainant, as per the sticker pasted on the car, it was tested and found OK by the manufacturer company on 1.11.2013. However, at the time of sale the car had already run 35 kms. and the warning red light of hand brake system was on. When the complainant asked for the reason as to why warning red light was on, the dealer assured him that it was immaterial. It is further the case of the complainant that although he was assured that the car will give mileage of 25 kms. per liter, its mileage was much less i.e. 18 kms. per liter. The complainant thus, contacted the opposite party on toll free number on 19.1.2014 and he was told that on 17.12.2013 the necessary rectifications were done to remove the defects in the car and to set right the average consumption. The complainant, however, on contacting some other mechanic came to know that warning red light of the brake system is a sign of failure of the brake system. The case of the complainant is that at the time of sale the opposite party dealer concealed from him that certain defects found in the car were removed on 17th December, 2013. Not only this, the hand brake system was rectified on 30.1.2014. On the aforesaid allegations, the complainant has claimed that the opposite party sold him defective and repaired car. Therefore, he is entitled to replacement of car also the compensation.

(3.) The respondent/opposite party in its written statement took the plea that before the delivery of car to the customer it is obligation of the dealer to conduct pre-delivery inspection and rectify minor faults. Thus, on 17.12.2013, pre-delivery inspection was done and it was found that fuel meter was not functioning properly. It was accordingly replaced. As regards the mileage of 35 kms. it was pleaded that the vehicle before sale, for the purpose of pre-delivery inspection, was put to test drive. It is alleged that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfect state after pre-delivery inspection and that in view of the on-line registration done, the date of sale in the registration certificate is shown as 16.1.2014. Otherwise, the vehicle was sold on 31.12.2013. On the same day it was got insured by the complainant.