PIRTHIPAL SINGH BHANDARI Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, the complainant No. 1, Dr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari, is a medical practitioner doing practice and having a clinic at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. He is also running a private hospital. Complainant No.2, Mr. Manjeet Singh, is brother -in -law of complainant No. 1 and was managing the said hospital of complainant No. 1 at Delhi. Complainant No.1 is around 46 years of age. They filed this complaint against M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., opposite party No.1 and M/s Sanghi Motors opposite party No. 2 for selling/supplying a defective ˜Armada Jeep having inherent manufacturing defects, which caused an accident to the vehicle, due to which, complainant No. 2 suffered serious injuries and became permanently disabled and incapacitated. Complainant No.2 is 53 years old at the time of accident and he has a son and a daughter to support him.

(2.) DR . Bhandari purchased the Jeep manufactured by OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 vide bill No. 522 dated 27.10.1993 for Rs. 2,82,826. The vehicle was delivered on 29.10.1993. Ever since the jeep was purchased, it was taken to the authorized service station i.e. OP No. 2 many number of times to rectify the defects. It is submitted that on 13.3.1994 the jeep failed pollution check at Janakpuri by Inspector of Transport Department of Delhi Authority, New Delhi after a third free service done by opposite parties. Complainant No.1 wrote vide letter dated 9.5.1994 to OP No.1 complaining that the left front tyre of the vehicle was wearing out at a very fast rate when it completed nearly 11,000 kilometers. It is contended that even though he got wheel balancing, wheel alignment and change of one bearing done in the third free service, the inherent manufacturing defect continued to remain in the vehicle and he reported this to OP No. 2. In the job card No.85 dated 21.4.1994 on 22.4.1994 it is noted that wheel bearing was changed and front left tyre was replaced with right tyre by OP No. 2, but it is contended that still the wearing of the tyre continued. On 14.7.1994, OP No. 2 assured in writing to complainant No.1 that the vehicle was in perfect order and safe to drive.

(3.) ON 16.7.1994, complainants No.1 and 2 and some others undertook a journey to Agra in the jeep, which was being driven by complainant No.1 driver, and unfortunately, it met with an accident due to bursting of the right tyre of the vehicle. The said accident was reported to police station Farah, Mathura District, immediately. Unfortunately, complainant No. 2 sustained serious injuries and had to be admitted in S.N. Hospital, Agra, in the Emergency Department, where after first aid treatment, he was shifted to Kolmet Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi for two weeks. Because of the accident, complainant No. 2, became permanently disabled as his right forearm was badly injured. His right arm was operated upon time and again. Blood transfusion was given for 15 times. He spent 5,15,000 for the treatment so far, and further, three more operations are required to be done costing Rs.1,00,000.