Kalidas Mukherjee, President
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Siliguri in case no.114/S/2010 allowing the complaint on contest in part against OP No.1, 2 and 4 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and dismissed against OP No.3 without any cost. The Learned District Forum passed the order as follows:
âthat the Consumer Case No.114/S/2010 is allowed on contest in part against the OP No.1, 2 and 4 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and dismissed against the OP No.3 but without costâ.2. The complainant is entitled to get an Order of replacement of the chassis of the similar nature and kind of the vehicle like Scorpio SC BS III.
3. The complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment.
4. The OP No.1, 2 and 4 who are jointly and severally liable are directed to change the chassis of similar nature of Scorpio SC BS III in the vehicle in question within 45 days from the date hereof failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP No.1,2 and 4.
5. The complainant is further at liberty to put the award in execution in case of default either to change the chassis in similar nature of Scorpio SC BS III by a new one and/or the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- coupled with Rs.30,000/- and if the said order be not carried out within the stipulated period the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with Rs.30,000/- do carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date if institution of the instant case i.e.28.10.10 till realization of the said sum.
Let Xerox copies of this Judgment and Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.â
6. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he purchased one Scorpio car being WB 74/N-1243 from OP No.3, the dealer of OP No.1 company. From the very inception the said vehicle started giving different kinds of difficulties/problems for which the complainant was compelled to place the vehicle at the authorized workshop of OP No.1 company, that is, the OP No.4. But in spite of repeated repairs the maintenance officials and engineer of OP No.1 company were not able to rectify/cure the defects. The engineer of the OP No.1 company on examination found crack in the chassis and opined that the tyre heating and non-lasting problem of the vehicle of the complainant were due to the crack in the chassis which was a manufacturing defect. The said problem could not be repaired/cured by the OPs and the OPs agreed to change/replace the entire chassis of the vehicle and were also ready and agreed to bear 50% of the cost of the new chassis. The assessor, Sri Pranay Pal after examination of the vehicle opined that the damage/formation of cracks of the vehicle happened due to brittleness of the LH/RH chassis without any incident of accident. Under the circumstances, the complainant filed the case before the Learned District Forum.
7. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the date of registration was 03/10/08 and as per the terms and conditions the warranty period extended upto two years or 50,000 k.m. whichever was less. It is contended that the complainant came beyond the period of warranty and, as such, he was to pay the necessary charges for repair. The Learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, the ex-dealer has submitted that no order was passed against the ex-dealer. It is contended that the complainant purchased the vehicle and the repairs were done as and when the same were necessary. It is submitted that subsequently respondent no.4 appeared in place of respondent no.3.
8. The Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the vehicle was purchased from respondent no.3. It is contended that after purchase of the vehicle the complainant faced different types of difficulties with the vehicle for which the vehicle was taken to the workshop on several occasions and repair works were done. It is contended that the defect in the chassis could not be removed and as per surveyors report it was clear that there was inherent defect in the chassis of the vehicle.
9. We have heard the submission made by Learned Counsel for the parties. The OPs wrote a letter to the complainant on 30 August, 2010 wherein it was mentioned that the period of warranty was for two years or 50,000 k.m. whichever occurred earlier. It was further mentioned therein that the vehicle had already covered one lakh k.m. and it was not covered under warranty. It was, however, mentioned in the said letter that as a special case the OPs agreed to replace the chassis of the vehicle and bear 50% costs as a special gesture. From the papers on record it appears that during the period of two years after purchase the vehicle was placed in the workshop on so many occasions and repairs were done on payment. From the report of the surveyor, Sri Pranay Pal dated 24/09/10 it would appear that the damage was found without any accidental cause, but the same were due to the materials failure. Having regard to the fact that the vehicle has already covered 1,00,000 k.m., we are of the considered opinion that it would not be proper to direct the replacement of the chassis by a new one. But at the same time having regard to the fact that the complainant on several occasions had to take the vehicle to the workshop for repair, the mental agony and harassment he had suffered and also the damage of the vehicle we think that the award of lump amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and proper.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants and respondent no.3, that is, the OP No.1, 2 and 4 of the complaint are jointly and severally directed to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) to the respondent/complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. The impugned judgment stands modified to the extent stated above.