- (1.) This appeal is filled against the judgment and order, dated 14-8-1995 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No. 7 of 1994.
(2.) The brief facts are that the complainant had purchased a jeep, Armada, manufactured by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra, on 1-6-1993 for Rs. 2,67. 997 for his family use. It is his say that the jeep was defective from the date of its purchase. In response to his letter dated 18-6-1994, one Mr. Godrej had attended to the vehicle on 13-6-1994. THE complainant further says that some parts were replaced twice or thrice. When there was no improvement in the functioning of the Jeep, he filed a complaint before the State Commission, Goa, for a direction to the manufacturer for refund of the price of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum, or in the alternative replacement of the old vehicle with a new one : Rs. 2. 50,000 towards compensation and a direction to the dealer, opposite party No. 5 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for his allure to give proper service. During the course of hearing, the State Commission appointed Mr. M. P. Vernekar, Chartered Engineer, as Commissioner, to inspect the vehicle and submit his report. The Commissioner examined the vehicle on 30-3-1995 and found the following defects: (1) The crown Pinion Assembly was found defective. (2) The colour was faded. (3) Brake Assembly system was found not working and defective. (4) The Recliner of driver seat was not working. (5) The steering wheel of the vehicle was jammed up and it was not returning back to normal on turnings. (6) Oil level in the Crown Pinion was found at 1. 2 Itrs. as against recommended 1-5- Itrs. (7) The body foundation at the front right wheel side was found cracked. (8) The wheel disc assembly in front were both found abnormally wobbling beyond permissible limits. Thus, making it unsafe to drive the vehicle. " The opposite parties filed their objections to the report before the State Commission. The State Commission disbelieved the objection of the opposite parties that the complainant had deliberately tampered with the vehicle to ensure a favourable report from the Commissioner. The State Commission further observed that the objections filed by the opposite parties against the report of the Commissioner, were filed only for the sake of filing abjections and there was no Substance in them. On the basis of the evidence, the State Commission further held that the vehicle was purchased for personal use and not for commercial use.
(3.) Upon hearing both the parties, adverting to the evidence placed before it by way of affidavits, and placing reliance more particularly on the report of the Commissioner, the State Commission found deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite parties and directed the opposite party No. 1, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. , Bombay, to refund a sum of Rs. 2. 67,997 to the complainant along with Rs. 25,000 towards compensation within 30 days from the receipt of the order and shall take back the vehicle in question from the complainant. It was also directed that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till realisation and to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,000 as costs. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the State Commission, he Opposite party No. 1, M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. has come in appeal before us.;