- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 22.04.09, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (hereinafter called District Forum for short), in complaint case No.65/08, whereby the appellant herein has been directed to hand over the questioned vehicle in running condition to the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of order and also to pay compensation @ Rs.500/ - per day for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of not providing the vehicle in time after repair. It has also been directed that if the vehicle is not returned as aforesaid, then the cost of the vehicle be paid to the complainant. Cost of litigation Rs.5,000/ - has also been directed to be paid to the complainant.
(2.) IN nutshell the case of the complainant before District Forum was that a TATA 207, light motor vehicle, was purchased by the complainant from the appellant. It was found that the vehicle was having some manufacturing defect and was giving troubles from the date of its purchase itself, which was brought to the service center of the appellant, time and again, but it could not be repaired fully. The vehicle was sent to the service center of the appellant on 19.01.08, for repairing purpose, but thereafter neither the vehicle was repaired by the appellant nor it was returned or any satisfactory reply was given. Then notice through advocate was sent, but no reply of that notice was given. Thereafter, consumer complaint was filed before District Forum alleging deficiency in service.
(3.) THE appellant in the written version refuted the allegation of deficiency in service and averred that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from appellant No.1 dealer and it was manufactured by appellant No.2, but it was not having any manufacturing defect. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant under hire purchase agreement. It has also been averred that some repairs and alterations in the vehicle were carried out at some other center. Later on the vehicle suffered accident and then it was brought to the service center of the appellant, which was repaired in time and intimation was given to the complainant, but the complainant deliberately avoided taking delivery of the vehicle and filed a false complaint against the appellants. Learned District Forum after considering the material placed before it by all parties, allowed the complaint by the impugned order.;