- (1.) APPELLANT has Filed this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act having been aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur ( herein after referred for short as "District Forum") in complaint case no.1021/2011, whereby complaint of the complainant was allowed alleging deficiency in service against the appellant.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a small truck Tata -S for self employment having warranty of one year, Regn. no. of which was CG -04/JP -8617. As per his averment, after about 8 days of purchase, the truck while running suddenly stopped, its silencer got chocked with also problem of leakage of diesel so he had to carry the vehicle about 70 KM away bearing toeing charges to OP, which repaired it in 2 days and also charged Rs.840/ - for the same. 25 days thereafter again similar problem occurred so it was taken to OP which repaired it in 3 days and charged Rs.350/ -. Complainant averred to have sustained financial loss to his daily earning due to frequent problems with the vehicle so he sent a written complaint to OP on 26.04.2010. Two months thereafter again there was the same problem for which OP charged Rs.940/ -. Thereafter Brake shoe of the vehicle failed due to which brake was not functioning so the vehicle was again taken to OP by toeing. Ten days after replacement of brake shoes the vehicle again developed fault so again it was taken to OP which repaired it within 2 days. Thereafter one day while running the vehicle, the vehicle suddenly got unbalanced and on reporting the matter to OP, its workers informed that tyre and tubes were required to be replaced so he had to spend Rs.2,508/ - for that. When his vehicle got unbalanced it was Dewali festive occasion when OP took 10 days time to solve the problem. Due to occurrence of frequent problems in the vehicle, a written complaint was sent to OP on 27.11.2010. Complainant further averred that in the month of December 2010 there was fault in the starter for which he had to bear expense of Rs.500/ -. The battery of the vehicle also faulted within a year period. He sent a Regd. Notice to OP seeking compensation but no heed was given. Complainant alleged that OP appeared to have sold him an old vehicle after its renovation. Complainant filed consumer complaint prayed before the District Forum seeking direction to OP to pay him compensation of Rs.1,50,000/ - towards financial loss and Rs.50,000/ - towards mental agony and harassment with also any other appropriate compensation as may be deemed fit.
(3.) OP , while denying other averments of the complainant, has averred that any warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and the complainant did not adher to maintenance of the vehicle in terms of the warranty and the problems stated by the complainant were due to its mishandling. OP further averred that the problems of the complainant could be due to factors like regular and proper maintenance, the road where the vehicle plies, proper driving skill of the driver etc. OP further averred that the complainant appeared to have been very negligent in the operation of the vehicle due to which he had been facing frequent problems. OP further averred that the complainant had purchased the vehicle after its inspection and whenever he reported the problems in the vehicle, the same was rectified to his satisfaction but next time he used to come with some another problem. OP, in its additional pleading, averred that the complainant had been using the vehicle for transportation and commercial purpose so he was not a 'consumer' it terms of Consumer Protection Act. Learned District Forum after having perused the documents produced before it and heard arguments of parties allowed the complaint directing OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/ - with interest @ 6% p.a. from 31.10.2011 and also cost of litigation Rs.2,000/ -.;