HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. NARAYAN PUNDALIK TAMANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Appeal No. 472 of 1993 has been filed against the Order dated 17.8.93 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji in Complaint No. 55 of 1992 directing M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., Calcutta (opposite party No. 1) to replace the vehicle of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the said order. Opposite party No. 1 is the appellant, and the complainant and opposite party No. 2, an authorised agent/dealer of opposite party No. 1 are respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively before us.

(2.) THE complainant, a driver by profession, had purchased an Ambassador Car (Hindustan Diesel Deluxe) on 12.2.90 from opposite party No. 2. He was depending upon the said vehicle for his livelihood and also to repay the loan taken for the purchase of the vehicle. After about 6 months of purchase of the vehicle, he noticed that the body of the vehicle was defective and had started corroding with the result that it developed dents and holes all over the body. According to the complainant, he took the vehicle on several occasions to opposite party No. 2, but the repairs carried out could not hold on for long. With the passage of time, the condition of the car was deteriorating; handle of rear door gave way and the door remained suspended for sometime. The complainant averred that as he could not ply the vehicle regularly and had to spend on repairs, it was extremely difficult for him to repay the Bank loan instalments in time which resulted in accumulation of liability. The complainant also produced on record before the State Commission (i) a certificate from one Mr. M.V. Bharne who had recommended the complete overhauling of the vehicle by replacing a totally new body, and (ii) a letter dated 24.9.92 from the State Bank of India addressed to opposite party No. 1 confirming that the vehicle had in less than one year's time shown deterioration to such an extent that it would be difficult to ply it on a regular basis unless repaired immediately. Opposite party No. 1 contended that they were not liable for the customers of opposite party No. 2 except under conditions of warranty and denied the allegations of manufacturing defects in the body of the vehicle. The State Commission inspected the vehicle in the presence of the complainant and the Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and found the body of the vehicle corroded at many places. To the plea that the complainant was not a consumer having purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose, the Commission held that the defects in the vehicle had occurred during the warranty period and that therefore the complaint was maintainable. The Commission further observed that whereas the opposite parties had not produced any evidence to bring on record about misuse or lack of maintenance of vehicle, the complainant had brought on record through his affidavit-in-evidence as well as through the correspondence of his Bankers to opposite party No. 1 that the vehicle was not in fit condition and the same has been admitted by the engineers of opposite party No. 1 and was also conveyed to O.P. No. 1 by the bankers of the complainant. In the result, the State Commission concluded that it was a case of absolute deficiency in service of opposite party No. 1 and that the body of the vehicle was apparently and admittedly defective and worth replacement of the vehicle under the warranty. The State Commission therefore, directed opposite party No. 1 to replace the vehicle of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the Order and the complainant to surrender the disputed vehicle to opposite party No. 1.

(3.) WE have heard the Counsel on both sides and carefully perused the records. First, on the question whether the complainant is a 'consumer' in terms of the Act before the amendment, the answer is in the affirmative. Even before the amendment inserting the explanation on commercial use below Section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act, this Commission had held that a person purchasing a machine or car or other items of goods as a means of self-employment for earning his livelihood is a consumer entitled to seek relief under the Act. This decision of the Commission has been categorically stated in Secretary, Consumer Guidance and Research Society of India v. M/s. B.P.L. India Ltd, (R.P. No. 54 of 1991), I (1991) CPJ 140, decided on 28.1.92, as under: