Bombay High Court
Tejas Gopalji Somani vs The Manager Bafna Motors Pvt Ltd And ... on 12 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:17946 (1) wp-7251-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7251 OF 2024
Tejas S/o Gopalji Somani,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Madhuban, Vidhyanagar,
Parali Vaijnath, Tq. Parali Vaijnath,
Dist. Beed. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Manager,
Bafna Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Gat No.100, Pimpalgaon (Mahadev)
Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded.
2. Tata Motors Limited,
One Inidabulls Centre,
Tower 2A & B, 20th Floor,
841, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Jupiter Mills Compound,
Eliphinstone Road (West),
Mumbai. ..Respondents
....
Mr. Pravin Kalani h/f Mr. S. H. Navandar, Advocate for Petitioner.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 12th AUGUST 2024.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
2. The petitioner impugns judgment and order dated 03.08.2023
passed by Presiding Member, National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition
No.1138/2020 as well as judgment and order dated 29.06.2020
passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal
(2) wp-7251-2024.odt
Commission, Mumbai Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal
No.161/2015 and seeks restoration of order dated 03.12.2014
passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nanded,
Maharashtra in C.C. No.272/2012.
3. Mr. Pravin Kalani, learned Advocate holding for Mr.
Navandar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that petitioner had purchased Tata Safari SUV from respondent
no.1. However, within short span the manufacturing defects were
noticed. The Air Conditioner was shut down. There was noise in
rear doors. There was starting problem. The mechanic of the non-
applicants took vehicle in their possession on 13.11.2006. On
02.12.2006, respondent no.1 asked petitioner to take possession of
vehicle as it has been repaired. However, owing to the glaring
manufacturing defects, petitioner demanded brand new vehicle,
since it was not expected that within 20 days of purchase, the
luxury vehicle would exhibit defect as indicated above. Mr. Kalani
would submits that District Forum appreciated aforesaid factual
aspects and recorded finding that there is deficiency in service on
the part of respondents and directed them to pay amount of
Rs.7,80,206/- (Value of Vehicle) to the petitioner alongwith interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e.
19.10.2006. Mr. Kalani would submit that State Commission
erroneously reversed the order passed by the District Forum and
same is confirmed by the National Commission. According to him,
Appellate as well as Revisional Authority failed to exercise
jurisdiction in tune with the object of legislation and upset well
reasoned order passed by the District Forum.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. Perused the orders of all three Authorities. Apparently,
(3) wp-7251-2024.odt
the petitioner is assailing the concurrent findings of facts recorded
by the State Commission and National Commission established
under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The State Commission
while reversing the judgment of the District Forum observed that
the problems including non-locking of doors, non-working AC and
some noise were curable defects and does not constitute
manufacturing defects, as claimed by the petitioner. The State
Commission also observed that all the defects as pointed out by the
petitioner were cured after repairing. The petitioner was called
upon to take back his vehicle. However, because of adamant
attitude, the petitioner insisted for brand new vehicle, which was
not reasonable demand. The National Commission concurred with
the aforesaid findings and observed that petitioner failed to take
custody of the vehicle after repairs. The intimation was given to
him immediately after repairing of the vehicle. The custody of
vehicle remained with opposite party only due to obdurance of the
petitioner.
5. When this Court put a specific query to the learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner as to whether defects pointed out by
the petitioner entitles him for replacement of vehicle or refund of
the full price as directed by the District Forum, he could not point
out any clause from warranty agreement that favours the stand of
the petitioner. Apparently, there were mechanical defects and
those were cured by respondent no.1. The petitioner was called
upon to take back his vehicle vide communication dated
02.12.2006. Unfortunately, the petitioner was stubborn on his
stand to get replacement by new vehicle in addition to insurance
value and registration charges. Apparently, no jurisdictional error
or fundamental defects in the approach of the State Commission or
National Commission is brought to the notice of this Court. This
(4) wp-7251-2024.odt
Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India would not delve into findings of facts or
replace opinion of Authorities recorded in order impugned. No
perversity in findings and approach of Authorities is discernible.
Hence, no case is made out to interfere in concurrent findings of
facts. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed in limine.
6. Rule is discharged.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/July-2024
