CHINKARA MOTORS Vs. ARCHIT SHEKHAR KARPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") is to the order dated 27.04.2018 in First Appeal No. 295 of 2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the Raigad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alibaug (in short "the District Forum") and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant, a retired Captain, wanting to start a water sport business, as a means of livelihood, after his retirement, decided to purchase a speed boat from the Opposite Party and paid an amount Rs.11,15,100.00 and the speed boat was delivered to him on 25.12.2010. It was averred that on 02.01.2011 when the speed boat was inspected in the presence of the Opposite Party, several defects were observed as water was entering into the boat from all sides and the front side of the boat was bending and water was also entering into the air tight compartment. It was pleaded that the boat was not built as per the terms of the Agreement, and the defendant had agreed to rectify the defects on 14.01.2011 and took the boat to its workshop on 20.01.2011 and returned the same to the Complainant without rectifying any of the defects and informing him. On 04.03.2011, that is the date on which the boat was returned, the Complainant informed the Opposite Party vide email that defects have not been rectified properly. Thereafter, both the parties discussed the matter and the Opposite Party decided to take back the boat and give a new boat before 14.08.2011, but despite repeated requests the boat was not replaced. It was averred that the Complainant suffered financial losses and mental stress and approached the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Party to repair the speed boat at there own cost or refund the amount paid with compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 and other expenses.

(3.) The Opposite Party filed their Written Version stating that the cost of the boat was not Rs.11,15,100.00, it was Rs.9,82,000.00; that the Complainant was put to possession of the boat on 25.12.2010 only after he had completely checked the boat and was satisfied. It was averred that the speed boat was built as per the terms of the Agreement and it was only because of the lack of proper knowledge of the speed boat driver and also because of high tide that the water had entered the boat. It was pleaded that it was only on account of the Complainant's repeated requests that the boat was given to the Complainant before the due time and that the Complainant brought the boat to the workshop of the Opposite Party personally on 20.01.2011 for rectification of some defects. It was averred that there were no discrepancies and there was no requirements of any repairs and that only some works was left to be completed. The boat was returned to the Complainant on 04.03.2011, but on account of the Complainant pressurizing the Opposite Party of lodging the Complaint with the Police that the Opposite Party agreed to provide the Complainant with the new boat. But once again the Complainant returned it for some minor change. It was stated that it was not possible for the Opposite Party to provide a new boat as the defects were already rectified and hence there is no deficiency of service on its behalf.