SPARROW ELECTRONICS LTD. 344,RAHEJA ARCADE , 1/1, KORAMANGALA INDL AREA, BANGALORE Vs. WHITE FIELD MOTORS PVT. LTD. & ANR. THE MANAGER DIRECTOR, WHITE FIELD MOTORS PVT. LTD. 116, B. NARAYANAPURA DOOORVANINAGAR, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two first appeals have been filed under Sec. 19 read with Sec. 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 04.07.2008, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in consumer complaint no. 27/2007, filed by the complainant/appellant in First Appeal No. 325/2008, Rajeev Sarda, Managing Director, M/s. Sparrow Electronics Ltd.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Rajeev Sarda purchased a Honda CRV car bearing registration no. KAO1MD 0732 for a total consideration of Rs. 16,10,261.00 on 30.01.2004 from the first opposite party (OP-1) White Field Motors Pvt. Ltd., who are the dealers. The said car was manufactured by the second opposite party (OP-2) Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. It is stated in the consumer complaint that on 19.11.2006 at about 12 noon, the complainant was returning to his residence at a speed of 40 km per hour, when he felt loss of control of the vehicle and loss of power in the steering wheel. With great difficulty, he managed to take the vehicle towards the left side of the road. The vehicle came to a complete halt and blocked the left part of the road at 60 o angle. Alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to refund the purchase value of the vehicle along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of the vehicle till realisation. In addition, he demanded a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the losses suffered, a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 per day to pay for the cost of alternate vehicle and to pay Rs. 10 lakhs for compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP-2 manufacturer by filing a written statement, in which it was stated that the said car was being used by the Company and its Directors, which was a commercial purpose and hence, the complainant was not a consumer. Further, the car had been purchased in good and proper condition and the complainant did not face any problem in the same, for a period of almost three years. The complainant was provided with warranty of two years or 45000 kms, whichever was earlier. At the time of the incident, the car was not covered by any warranty. The OP-2 stated that although there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, they had offered to carry out the replacement of the AC compressor, free of cost as a gesture of goodwill. The OP-2 requested that the consumer complaint should be dismissed. The State Commission, based on the pleadings of the rival parties, decided to go into the issue as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. During proceedings before them, the State Commission appointed two Commissioners - one suggested by the complainant and the other by the manufacturer, asking them to inspect the vehicle and submit report. As stated in the order of the State Commission, the Commissioner suggested by the complainant filed his report, saying that:-