M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The complainant having claimed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation, alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle, sold by the opposite parties 1 and 2, as well deficiency in service, filed a case, and obtained an order for rectification, to rectify the defects, as well for the payment of compensation of Rs.30000/-, giving grievance, resulting this appeal, by complainant.
(2.) Brief facts: The complainant/ appellant, had purchased a heavy vehicle Escavator machine, model TATA JD 315, at the instance of the 1st opposite party, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, availing loan facility to the extent of Rs.13,50,000/-, from 3rd opposite party, in the month of December 2003, i.e., as reported, on 3.12.2003. From the beginning, the vehicle was giving trouble, due to manufacturing defect, and despite lodging several complaints by the complainant, the problems were not cured/ rectified effectively, continued, thereby depriving the livelihood of the complainant, who had purchased this vehicle, for self earning. Between the period of 5.2.2004 and 17.3.2005, during the span of roughly one year, this vehicle was under repair for 192 days, thereby causing monetary loss, resulting non-payment of the instalment payable to the 3rd opposite party. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice, and even thereafter, approached the opposite parties in person, several times, requesting to take back the vehicle, and pay total finance amount, and repay RS.8 lakhs, not conceded, thereby causing mental agony, resulting damage also Further the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.64000/- for spare parts, within the short time, after the purchase of the vehicle, that too, within the warranty period. The opposite parties 1 and 2, having sold a defective vehicle, should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, alongwith 3rd opposite party also, since it is the sister concern of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence the complaint.
(3.) The opposite parties 1 and 2, questioning the status of the complainant, as consumer, contending that the case itself is not maintainable, resisted the case, further contending that, though the vehicle was purchased in the month of December 2003, complainant registered the vehicle, only in the month of February 2005, that as and when problems in the vehicle were reported, as informed by the complainant, they were attended on spot, where the machine/vehicle was stationed, that if there was any further problem, that must be due to improper maintenance of the vehicle despite instructions and not following the instructions given in the manual, for which the opposite parties cannot be held responsible, that there was no manufacturing defect, and if at all the problem must be only on the account of poor maintenance of the vehicle on the part of the complainant, resulting frequent unnecessary calls, that too was attended sincerely, and therefore as such there was no deficiency, or negligence, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;