State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Durga Dutt Saini vs Gautam Auto on 13 July, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 13.07.2007 (1) Appeal No.229/2004 (Arising from the order dated 26.02.2004 passed by District Forum(West), Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.198/2003) Sh. Durga Dutt Saini, .. Appellant. H.No. 112, Panchwati, in person. Delhi Cantt., New Delhi. Versus M/s. Gautam Auto .. Respondent. 4-A/4, Tilak Nagar, through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi Najafgarh Road, advocate. New Delhi. (2) Appeal No.268/2004 (Arising from the order dated 26.02.2004 passed by District Forum(West), Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.198/2003) M/s. Gautam Auto .. Appellant. 4-A/4, Tilak Nagar, through Mr. Rajesh Tyagi Najafgarh Road, advocate. New Delhi. Versus Sh. Durga Dutt Saini, .. Respondent H.No. 112, Panchwati, in person. Delhi Cantt., New Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed against the order dated 26.02.2004 passed by the District Forum. Sh. D.D. Saini is a consumer(hereinafter referred to as the appellant) whereas M/s. Gautam Auto is service provider (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).
2. On the allegations that the respondent Gautam Auto sold a highly defective scooter to the appellant Sh. D.D. Saini, as it started giving trouble immediately and was taken on large number of occasions to the workshop of the respondent for one defect or the other, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 26.02.2004 directed the respondent Gautam Auto to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- as damages and Rs.500/- as cost.
3. Apparently the appellant Sh. D.D. Saini is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the respondent Gautam Auto is aggrieved of the order itself.
4. The allegations of the appellant were that after seeing number of scooters at the showroom of the appellant he purchased a scooter bearing No.DL-4S-AD-9374. When he took that scooter and after driving a few kilometers, it was observed that there is a complaint of wobbling. Respondent was shown the same Respondent told that after driving for sometime it will be okay. But it again started bubbling after a few days although it was got checked for the air which was found to be correct. Respondent was informed about this on 20th and 21st November 2002. As the respondent failed to rectify and change the wheel/tyre which became damaged and as per the instructions of respondent he took the tyre to the Dunlop Company where they said that there is no defect in the tyre but still they changed it. Thereafter again the defects developed and the appellant had to get the tyres changed time and again. That Dunlop Company said that there is defect in the scooter and not in the tyre. But they refused to give it in writing and appellant had to change a number of tyres due to bubbling which never stopped. Appellant made various complaints to the respondent who kept the scooter for many days but failed to rectify the same. It is alleged that the scooter developed a number of defects as detailed in the complaint and appellant had to approach the respondent for 52 days to rectify the said defects.
5. As against this the version of the respondent Gautam Auto was that as and when the scooter was brought to them the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the appellant and the main reason for bubbling in the scooter was defective tyres and the tyres were changed.
6. We have perused the impugned order and find that the District Forum has observed that the number of complaints made by the appellant which ultimately were rectified by the respondent goes to show that the scooter was developing defects time and again though minor in nature which certainly caused harassment and mental tension to the appellant.
7. Whenever a consumer purchases a new vehicle he does so to avoid inconvenience and the problems that second hand vehiclepresent. If the new vehicle also starts giving trouble to after every 2-3 days and forces him to go to the garage or the manufacturer for getting one or the other defects removed may be shows that there was some or the other defects in the vehicle.
8. In modern day busy life one is not supposed to take the vehicle every 2-3 days to the workshop for getting the defects removed that too in a new vehicle. Merely because the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the consumer after several visits and repairs does not mitigate the harassment and mental agony, financial loss suffered by the consumer by going time and again to the workshop.
9. In order to inculcate high standard of quality and standard in the goods like vehicle and any other goods, the legislature laid very stern definition of the word defect by way of section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The word defect means:
any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied or} as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any good.
10. The vehicle may not suffer from manufacturing defect but defect is defect may be of any nature. The word compensation in the context of provision of Consumer Protection Act has been provided a very wide connotation which includes compensation for mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort and injustice done to the consumer
11. Large number of job cards shown in this case project that the appellant has suffered immensely due to such defects in the scooter that were erupting time and again and putting him into such a jeopardy that instead of attending to his business he was busy in getting the defects removed.
12. In our view the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is not even a peanut of the expenses incurred by the appellant in taking the vehicle time and again to the respondent what to talk mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
13. In the given facts and circumstance we dismiss the appeal of the respondent Gautam Auto and allow the appeal of the appellant Sh. D.D. Saini by enhancing amount of compensation to Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort and injustice done to him and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
14. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced today on 13th day of July 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri