The apex consumer commission has dismissed Eicher Motors' plea challenging a state consumer commission's order directing the company to pay Rs 1.05 lakh to a customer for selling him a bus with a defective engine.
Eicher had moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission which had also asked the vehicle manufacturer to replace the defective engine.
The company had contended it had not been able to argue its case before the state commission as it was not aware when the case was listed for hearing.
The NCDRC, however, rejected Eicher's contention saying it "did not attend the proceedings in order to delay them" and dismissed its plea.
"The arguments carry no conviction. It is the bounden duty of the litigant that he must keep himself posted with day to day hearing. In case he is unable to attend the commission, he must be aware of the next date of hearing...the petitioner
(Eicher) did not try to know about the next date of hearing.
"The petitioner did not attend the proceedings in order to delay the proceedings unnecessarily. Its argument that it was not given opportunity of being heard is badly flawed. We find that the concurrent findings in respect of defective
engine suffer from no illegality. The petitioner itself has admitted that engine was defective and there was manufacturing defect," the bench presided by Justice J M Malik said.
The state commission's directions had come on a plea by Eicher against a District Forum order which had asked it to replace the defective engine and pay the customer Rs 25,000 as compensation.
The district forum's order had come on a complaint filed by a Himachal Pradesh native Vijender Singh who had said that the Eicher bus he had bought in June 2007 for a sum of Rs 6.4 lakh had a defective engine.
Singh had said in his complaint that the engine and gear box of the bus were guaranteed for a period of 36 months from the date of purchase.
However, in July 2007, after one month of purchase, the engine of the bus had broken down owing to manufacturing defect, Singh had alleged adding that Eicher had replaced it with an older one which also went out of order.
Eicher had denied the allegations and had also contended before the district forum that the vehicle had covered more than 50,000 kms when it had broken down and therefore,