ASHOK LEYLAND CO LTD & ANR Vs. SHASHI KUMAR SINGH & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20.9.2002 in Complaint No. 275/99 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) directing the appellants that they would replace the chassis of the vehicle purchased by the complainant/respondent No. 1, and also pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation besides Rs. 1,000 as cost of the complaint.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the complainant had purchased a truck 'Cargo -709' on 12.3.1996 for self employment, from appellant No. 2 dealer, of the said vehicle. Appellant No. 1 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. The price of the truck was paid by the complainant/respondent No. 1 after obtaining finance from the respondent No. 2.

(3.) ACCORDING to the complainant the warranty on the said vehicle was for a period of 11/2 years. It was also averred that the chassis of the said truck cracked within a year of purchase. The complainant informed about it to the dealer the appellant No. 2 on 11.3.1997 by fax and sought replacement of the chassis. It was further averred that though the appellant No. 2 dealer continued to assure the complainant/respondent No. 1 that the chassis shall be replaced, however, the said promise was not fulfilled. The complainant, therefore, sent a registered letter dated 2.2.1998 to the dealer/appellant No. 2, upon which, the dealer/appellant No. 2 sent his representative to examine the vehicle on 3.3.1998. The appellant No. 1 then wrote a letter through its Divisional Office at Nagpur intimating complainant/respondent No. 1 that there was alteration in suspension of the truck resulting in crack to the chassis of the truck, hence replacement of the chassis would not be possible, as there was breach of warranty conditions. The complainant averred that there was no alteration in the chassis and his claim was within warranty, hence by not replacing the chassis the appellants committed deficiency in service. It was, therefore, averred that the complainant was entitled to replacement of the chassis and was also entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,000.