RAMCHANDRA PANDURANG KASHID Vs. AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner, Ramchandra Pandurang Kashid against the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai (in short 'the State Commission') in First Appeal Nos. A/13/216 & A/13/226.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that after deliberations and negotiations, the respondent no.2 sold truck model No.2513 IL costing Rs.14,10,000/- to the petitioner of which possession was taken by him on 2.4.2011. Respondent no.2 is the dealer of respondent no.1 who is the manufacturer of the truck. Thereafter petitioner built a body on the truck spending an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and ultimately after making it road worthy the truck was brought on road. However, when the truck was put in use the petitioner found that the front wheel hub of the truck was getting over heated. As such he was advised to approach the respondent no.2. Accordingly, on 13.6.2011, the petitioner took the truck to respondent no.2 with a complaint of front wheel hub heating. At that time the truck had travelled the distance of 10595 kms. But instead of rectifying the problem pointed out by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 carried out some basic servicing and repair work for which they also charged the petitioner. The problem persisted even after the truck ran over 15500 kms. only and in these circumstances the petitioner again took the truck on 18.8.2011, for servicing to respondent no.2 but, the problem of hub heating persisted. Thereafter, on 2.9.2011, 23.2.2012, 11.4.2012 & 3.5.2012 the truck was time and again taken to the workshop of respondent no.2 pointing out that the front wheel hub was getting heated up after travelling for short distances also and there seems to be some manufacturing defect in the truck. On 5.5.2012 despite the repeated complaints made by the petitioner, the respondents did not rectify the problem in the truck as a consequence of which, the petitioner refused to take the delivery of the truck. On 23.5.2012, the petitioner through his advocate issued a legal notice to the respondents pointing out the defects in the truck and the consequential economic loss sustained by him for which he requested them to make good the loss sustained by him. On 23.6.2012 the said legal notice was replied by respondent no.2 refuting the averments raised therein. In these circumstances, on 30.7.2012 the petitioner filed the complaint no. CC/12/207 before the District Forum Solapur contending that there was a manufacturing defect in the truck and that he was required to spend an amount for change of oil and purchase of material, etc. for the truck. It was further contended that normally a truck travels distance over 1,00,000 kms. over a year but because of problem of front wheel hub heating, truck in question could not travel over 60000 kms. thereby, petitioner sustained loss of income. Accordingly, the petitioner alleged that there was a manufacturing defect in the truck and in view of the alleged deficiency in service on the part of both the respondents, they were liable to make good the loss of Rs.17 lakhs, together with interest @ 9% p.a. and/or provide the petitioner a new truck and compensation for mental agony etc. Alongwith the said complaint the petitioner also filed the affidavit of one Shri Sanjay Ashok Pawar who has been stated to be an Engineer to substantiate his contention regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Reply was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 herein opposing the relief claimed in the consumer complaint. Vide order dated 29.4.2013 the District Forum , Solapur allowed the Consumer Complaint No.CC/12/2007 filed by the petitioner herein by directing the respondents jointly to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per day from 3.5.2012 as compensation for physical, mental and economic loss. In 2013, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Appeal No.A/13/2016 & Appeal No.A/13/226 were filed by respondent no.2 & respondent no.1 respectively before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeals and dismissed the complaint.

(3.) Hence, the present revision petitions.