GIRISH BHOLANATH PANDE R/O & C/O. SHRI MUKUNDRAO PADOLE, BYPASS ROAD, REVATKAR LAY OUT UMRED, TALUKA UMRED, DISTRICT Vs. EROS MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED AUTHORISED DEALER SML, ISUZU LIMITED, IMAMWADA ROAD, GUJAR WADI, OPPOSITE PUROHIT DALDA FACTORY, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.02.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/14/154, Erose Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Girish Bholanath Pande , vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 17.02.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. 525/2011, was set aside and the consumer complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Girish Bholanath Pande, filed the consumer complaint no. 525/2011, saying that he was owner of a Swaraj Mazda mini bus with registration no. MH-27/A 9133 and was earning his livelihood by running the said bus. He purchased the said bus from Roopnarayan Dube, resident of Nagpur and the same was registered in his name on 18.11.2015. The bus suffered from defect in the front wheel of the vehicle, which created sound and hence, he sent the bus for repairs to the opposite party on a number of occasions. Despite the repairs being carried out by the opposite party and the charges paid, the defect in the bus could not be removed. The complainant sent the bus for repairs third time on 30.06.2011, when the opposite party issued a quotation of Rs. 35,130.00 for repairs. However, on the other hand, the opposite party opened parts of the engine, saying that the repairs of the bus were going on. In this way, the opposite party compelled the complainant to spend the amount in question. The complainant alleged that there was no defect in the engine of the vehicle. The complainant had, therefore, suffered mental agony due to non-repair of the bus and he was incurring a loss of Rs. 2,000.00 per day on that account. The complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 3,28,661.00 as compensation from the opposite party.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant was running his business with 6 to 8 tourist buses and hence, he did not fall under the definition of Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Further, the vehicle was duly repaired and returned to the complainant after taking trial by his driver and to his satisfaction. The defect in the vehicle was due to negligent driving. The opposite party repaired the vehicle again, when it was brought to them on 30.06.2011, but the complainant failed to make payment of the repair charges of Rs. 35,130.00 and filed the present consumer complaint against them, which deserves to be dismissed. The opposite party demanded that they should be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation for the mental agony suffered due to filing of a false complaint against them. The District Forum, vide their order dated 17.02.2014, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to handover the vehicle to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 500.00 per day as compensation from the date of filing the complaint till the date of handing over the vehicle. The District Forum also directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000.00 for litigation expenses. Being aggrieved against the order, the opposite party challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed vide impugned order and the consumer complaint has been dismissed. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.