SANJAY RASTOGI Vs. ARSH ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 216 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle (three -wheeler) on 26.07.2006 from M/s Arsh Enterprises, Dehradun - opposite party No. 1, who was the authorised dealer of M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Pune - opposite party No. 2, the manufacturer of the said vehicle named "APE CARGO D 810 Delivery Van, 1.3 Tonner". The complainant has alleged that since the very first day of its purchase, when he was taking the vehicle from Dehradun to Kotdwar, it started giving problem. He also found that the vehicle was not fit for plying in hill roads, though the manufacturer, i.e. opposite party No. 2, had claimed in its brochure that the said vehicle was powered by its superior engine and it can effortlessly climb gradients and hill roads with higher operating loads even at low speed. The complainant has alleged that he could not use the vehicle for delivery of goods in hill regions of District Pauri Garhwal. Even in the plains, he could not use the vehicle sufficiently, because he had to take the vehicle most frequently to the service centre for repair. His woes got further aggravated as the service centre in Kotdwar was closed after few days of the vehicles purchase and he had to bring the vehicle every time to Dehradun for service and repair. Though the opposite party No. 1 claims that its service engineers visited Kotdwar every month, but the complainants version is that the service engineers of the opposite party No. 1 never visited Kotdwar regularly and due to non -availability of regular service, the vehicle remained idle for most of the time. According to the complainant, the vehicle ran only 7,000 kms from the date of its purchase till 26.11.2008. The vehicle carried one years warranty or trouble free run of 36,000 kms, whichever was less. Thus, alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum on 01.12.2008, seeking a relief of Rs. 3,51,419/ - and compensation @ Rs. 200/ - per day for harassment, inconvenience, frustration, mental agony etc. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, dismissed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 14.10.2009. The complainant challenged the said order by filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission on 12.11.2009, which was registered as First Appeal No. 208 of 2009. This Commission vide its order dated 12.08.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 208 of 2009, allowed complainants appeal and set aside the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the District Forum and remanded the case back to the District Forum with the directions that the consumer complaint be decided afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the order. The complainant was also directed to take steps for expert report within a period of 10 days. In compliance of these directions, the District Forum decided the consumer complaint vide its order dated 29.03.2011 and dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to take steps within 10 days and could not produce expert report with regard to the vehicle in question. The complainant again challenged the order dated 29.03.2011 and filed an appeal before this Commission, which was registered as First Appeal No. 71 of 2011. This Commission vide its order dated 05.12.2011 passed in First Appeal No. 71 of 2011, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the District Forum. The case was again remanded back to the District Forum with the directions that the case be decided afresh after an appreciation of the evidences filed by the parties as per provisions under Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum, in compliance of these directions, decided the consumer complaint vide its order dated 21.02.2012, whereby the consumer complaint has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

(3.) IN this appeal, the arguments were heard on 23.04.2013 from both the sides and this Commission had fixed the matter for delivery of the judgment on 10.05.2013. Meantime, a letter was received from the appellant through registered post on 08.05.2013, requesting therein that the respondents be directed to submit their written arguments. However, keeping in view the satisfaction of the appellant, we directed the respondents to submit the written arguments. The learned counsel for the respondents filed the written arguments on 17.06.2013. The appellant has also sent the supplementary arguments through registered post on 07.08.2013.