AMARNATH SINGH Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra passed in Complaint No. 220 of 1991 by which the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the complainant, he purchased a new Mahindra Jeep from the local dealer respondent No. 2 herein, M/s. Provincial Automobiles Ltd., Nagpur, (for short the dealer) of Mahindra jeep manufactured by respondent No. 1 herein, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. These respondents were arrayed as opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the complaint. The jeep was purchased on 24th February, 1989 for a consideration of Rs.1,23,710/-. The complainant had purchased the jeep for his private and family use. According to the complainant the said vehicle did not function properly and required frequent repairs after covering about 4 to 4.5 thousand kilometers. However, he got it repaired from the local mechanic as there was no authorised repair shop of opposite party No. 1 at Gondia. The complainant alleged that the vehicle was defective and several parts, namely clutch plate, pressure plate, bearings, battery, tie rod were replaced within a short time. After the jeep had run about 40,000 kms. major trouble was found, namely, excess fuel consumption. The complainant got the engine of the jeep opened and examined in the garage of the local expert mechanic at Gondia on 29th July, 1991. It was found that the engine was of a tractor and its bearings, crank shaft and other parts were of sub-standard size. Moreover, the engine number of the jeep was "DM 45372A" and not "DM 45392" as mentioned in the delivery memo and bill and other documents issued by the dealer at the time of the sale of the vehicle. The service engineer of the manufacturer after examining the engine told the complainant that the suffix "A" indicates that all undersize parts have been used in the engine. However, this fact was not disclosed to the complainant at the time of sale. The representative of the opposite parties visited Gondia on 5th August, 1991 and after inspecting the subject engine informed the complainant that fitment of 0.1Q" undersize parts i.e. crank shaft, bearings etc. to some engines are common practice in the automobile industry and such engines are considered to be standard ones as replacement parts are available. The same view was expressed by the General Manager (Service) of the manufacturer in his letter dated 17th August, 1991, but, however, further stated that, as a special case arrangements were being made to supply standard size crank shaft, bearings etc. to the complainant and engine would be rebuilt free of cost. Accordingly, on 20th September, 1991 the opposite parties i.e., respondents herein sent another crank shaft, etc. to the local mechanic but it could not be fitted as it was not of proper size. The respondents took away the original crank shaft and promised to sent another one in its place but failed to do so. Meanwhile, the complainant was deprived of the use of the vehicle for treatment of his ailing wife and other family members* Again the opposite parties sent another crank shaft, but it was also of under size and could not be fitted. All the time the vehicle was lying with the engine opened in the workshop. In spite of repeated requests the opposite parties failed to commission the engine and they did not handover the standard size parts to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint on 16th October, 1991, claiming Rs. 24,000/- towards the damages, Rs. 300/- per day towards loss and Rs. 20,000/- further loss = total Rs. 2,65,000/-.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 2 i.e. the dealer, has also filed a counter. According to them the vehicle was delivered in good condition. Free services were rendered to the vehicle by them and the minor defects which were pointed out were rectified free of cost except the additional work not covered under the conditions of warranty and for that additional work the complainant was charged. It was also stated that the first complaint was received from the complainant on 30th July, 1991 and it was properly attended to. It was also pleaded that according to the instructions of the opposite party No. 1 the answering opposite party delivered some parts to the complainant and the complainant gave a note of satisfaction dated the 20th September, 1991. The other allegations were also denied.