Decided on December 14,2006

Trisha Sharma And Others Respondents


- (1.) BOTH these appeal Nos. 902 and 951 of 2005 filed by two of the three opposite parties and taken up together, arise from the order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in C.C. No. 267 of 2004 directing appellants either to replace the vehicle, a scarpio car or refund of its price money Rs. 5,92,000 to complainant.
(2.) THE facts of material for these appeals and as unfolded by the evidence on records are these: The vehicle in question was manufactured by opposite party No. 1 Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and purchased by the complainant -Smt. Trisha Sharma from Gwalior based dealer opposite party No. 2, on 7.6.2003. It appears that the delivery of the vehicle was obtained by the complainant at Indore through opposite party No. 3. It may also be clarified that the vehicle was purchased by complainant in her virgin name Trisha Joshi which after marriage is now Smt. Trisha Sharma. Free and other paid services to the vehicle were done by opposite party No. 3 at Indore on 1.7.2003, 19.7.2003, 2.9.2003, 11/13.9.2003, 8.11.2003, 3.12.2003, 17.1.2004 and 12.5.2004. The vehicle on the date of purchase/delivery showed kilo -metre reading 1140 while on the aforesaid dates of services, the readings were 2734, 5218, 11028, 11742, 16176, 17849, 20802 and 27604 kms. respectively. Mainly the complaints in the vehicle as noted at the time of aforesaid services, amongst others, were of low cooling by the AC, noise from steering, propeller shaft, wheels on applying brake and from roof and low average. While rendering the aforesaid services and carrying repairs, the complainant was charged for the items not covered by the warranty which was 24 months or before the vehicle had run for 50,000 kms. from the date of delivery, whichever is earlier.
(3.) THE grievance of the complainant before the Forum below was that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects experienced from day one and which could not be rectified by opposite party No. 3 despite the vehicle being taken to the latter almost every month during the first year of the purchase. The allegation was denied by opposite parties through separate but similar replies and it was contended that the problems noticed were of general nature and attended to promptly. It was contended that the complainant while using the vehicle extensively did not get timely services done to the vehicle resulting into the said problems which were, however, attended properly and parts covered by the warranty were replaced free of charge. The opposite parties also challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum Indore to hear and decide the complaint and it was contended that the vehicle being purchased at Gwalior, only the District Forum, Gwalior had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Forums below on consideration of the evidentiary material filed by the parties came to the conclusion that the vehicle sold to the complainant was defective. It also over -ruled the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Forum raised by the opposite parties and passed order for replacement of the vehicle or refund its price to the complainant as aforesaid.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.