ABHINANDAN Vs. AJIT KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision by opposite party No.1 is directed against the order dated 12.4.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bihar, Patna dismissing appeal against the order dated 24.6.1996 of a District Forum but reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 10% p. a. The District Forum had directed the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 / opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to pay the amount of Rs.14,000 being the cost of VCP with interest @ 18% p. a. from 9.10.1991 till realisation, to respondent No.1/complainant.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. On 9.10.1991, the respondent No.1 had purchased a VCP from the petitioner, dealer of respondent Nos.2 and 3 - manufacturer for Rs.14,000. Since the VCP purchased was defective the same was replaced twice by the petitioner. As the third set of VCP too was defective, the respondent No.1 gave it for repairs on 30.10.1992 at the service centre of manufacturer. Thereafter, complaint was filed by respondent No.1 which was contested by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. Sale of VCP to respondent No.1 on 9.10.1991 and replacement thereof twice by the petitioner was not denied. It was, however, alleged that the third set of VCP is lying in working condition and can be collected by respondent No.1 any day from the service centre of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Complaint by respondent No.1 and appeal filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of in the manner noticed above.

(3.) Submission advanced by Ms. Prerna Mehta for the petitioner is that the third set of VCP was given on 30.10.1992 by respondent No.1 at the service centre of the manufacturer-respondent Nos.2 and 3 for repairs and liability for the awarded amount, therefore, cannot be fastened on the petitioner. In support of that submission, she has invited our attention to the document at pages 19 and 20. She has further submitted that both the Fora below have returned finding that the VCP was having manufacturing defect and for manufacturing defect it is only the manufacturer who is liable to refund the cost of VCP. According to her, Forum's order dated 24.6.1996 has attained finality qua the manufacturer as it did not file any appeal against that order. Document at page No.19 would show that VCP bearing chassis No.4179 was given for repairs at the service centre of the manufacturer by respondent No.1 on 30.10.1992. Document at page No.20 is the copy of letter allegedly sent under certificate of posting by the manufacturer to respondent No.1 intimating that the set is lying in OK condition and can be collected on any working day during office hours by respondent No.1. Genuineness of this letter was under challenge by respondent No.1 as may be seen from the order of State Commission. Be that as it may from the document at page 19 and the averments made in complaint, it is manifest that the third VCP set was not given on 3.10.1992 to the petitioner, dealer. That being the position, it will be the liability of manufacturer to compensate respondent No.1. That apart, in view of the decision in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Anr. V/s. N. Siva Kumar and Anr., 2000 10 SCC 654, the petitioner, dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defect in the VCP. Thus, the orders passed by Fora below cannot be legally sustained.