JEEVANTI DEVI Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD. & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Smt. Jeevanti Devi, against the order dated 14.09.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.43 of 2011 and First Appeal No.44 of 201

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 16.01.2008, the complainant/revisionist purchased a TATA Winger Mini Bus from respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.6, 19, 852/- and got it registered in the Office of RTO, Haldwani having registration No.UK 04 PA0020. The said vehicle was purchased with the financial assistance from the Nainital Almora Bank, Branch Haldwani. The revisionist also got issued a permit and intrusted the said vehicle to an expert driver. On 15.07.2008, speedometer of the said vehicle became out of order and thus it was handed over to the respondent No.1 for its repairing. On 26.07.2008, for repairing, the gear-box of the said vehicle was opened, but it was re-fitted correctly and in the meanwhile, the barring of the left axle of the vehicle became defective but the respondent No.1 in place of repairing it correctly, fitted the barring of some old vehicle and thereafter handed over the said vehicle to the revisionist. However, the vehicle did not remain in prompt running condition. On 20.12008 to 29.12008, the said vehicle again went out of order and was again handed over to the respondent No.1 for its repairing and it remained with it till 29.12008. After few days, the vehicle again went out of order and it was again handed over to the respondent No.1 and it remained with it from 09.01.2009 till 03.02009. On 14.02009, the vehicle again went out of order and since then it is lying with the respondent No.1. All the aforementioned defects in the vehicle occurred during the period of warranty/guarantee but the same were not properly cured. It was further alleged that the respondent No.1 has sold the said vehicle to the complainant/revisionist which was suffering from mechanical and manufacturing defects, on account of which the complainant/revisionist has suffered great mental torture, besides financial loss. On 28.02009, the complainant/revisionist could not run the same and thus failed to pay the instalment of the loan and had to pay taxes of the said vehicle on her own and as such under compulsion surrendered the documents to the RTO, Haldwani. On 19.02009, the complainant/revisionist got sent a notice through counsel, which remained un-replied. Thereafter, the complainant filed consumer complaint case No.29 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital for refund of the cost of the vehicle with interest or to provide new vehicle in place of it. On 23.06.2009, the respondent No.2 filed written statement stating that as and when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the respondent No.1, the defects were duly rectified. The respondent No1 also filed written statement stating that the vehicle was checked in the workshop and leakage was found in the oil seal of the gear-box and the lock of the door was found broken. It was further stated that after the receipt of parts, the vehicle was repaired and handed over to the complainant on 26.07.2008 after getting it tested to her full satisfaction. It was further stated that on 20.12008, the complainant brought the vehicle with the complaint of noise in gear-box and white smoking. It was further stated that after necessary repairs, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant/revisionist on 29.12008 to her full satisfaction. It was further stated that again on 09.01.2009, the vehicle was brought with the complaint regarding gear box and speedometer of the vehicle and the new gear box was fitted in the vehicle and after trial of the vehicle by the son and the driver of the complainant, the vehicle was handed over. It was further stated that on 14.02009, the vehicle was brought to the workshop and on checking, the battery of the vehicle was found defective and by that time the warranty had expired and this fact was duly informed to the complainant. It was further stated that on replacing the battery, the starting of the vehicle was found in order and the complainant has unnecessarily left her vehicle in the workshop. On 201.2011, the District Forum after careful consideration of the respective versions of the parties and appreciation of the material available on record, allowed the aforesaid consumer complaint case and awarded a sum of Rs.5, 79, 085/- after deducting Rs.50, 000/- from the actual cost of the vehicle. In the month of February, 2011, aggrieved by the award passed by the District Forum, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed two appeals before the State Commission, which were numbered as First Appeal No.43 of 2011 and First Appeal No.44 of 2011. The State Commission allowed both the appeals vide its order dated 14.09.2012 and set aside the order of the District Forum. The consumer complaint of the complainant was also consequently dismissed.

(3.) Hence the present revision petition.