State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Finance Ltd., vs Shri Mohit Sharma & Ors. on 20 June, 2013
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First
Appeal No: 186/2012.
Date
of Decision: 20.06.2013.
Tata
Motors Finance Ltd.,
NH-21, Lunapani, P.O. Bhangrotu,
Tehsil
and District Mandi, H.P.
Appellant.
Versus
1. Shri Mohit Sharma son of Shri Rajinder
Sharma,
R/o Civil Bazar, Dharamshala,
District Kangra, H.P.
2. M/s. Satluj Motors,
NH-21, Lunapani, P.O. Bhangrotu,
Tehsil and District Mandi, H.P.
3. M/s. Telco Passenger Car Business Unit,
KD Block, Timtri,
Pune-411 018.
Respondents.
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble
Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant: Ms.
Shilpa Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Mehar Chand Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 03.04.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redrressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent No.1, Mohit Sharma, against respondents No.2 & 3, i.e. M/s. Satluj Motors and M/s. Telco Passenger Car Business Unit, impleaded as opposite parties No.1 & 2, respectively and the present appellant, impleaded as opposite party No.3, has been allowed, and a direction is issued to the present appellant to refund `4.13 lacs to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the complaint to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `10,000/- as compensation and `5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Respondent, Mohit Sharma, filed the complaint alleging that he had purchased a Tata Indigo (XL) Classic Dcor Car Model 2007, from respondents No.1 & 2, on 21.11.2007, for a consideration of `6,20,831/- and the purchase of the vehicle was financed to the extent of `4.90 lacs by the present appellant. It was alleged that the car had been giving trouble from the very beginning and repeatedly it was taken to the workshop of respondents No.1 & 2 for removing the defects, but the said respondents failed to remove the defects, which indicated that the vehicle was having some manufacturing inherent defect. It was alleged that the car had to be ultimately left at the workshop of respondents No.1 & 2 for repair, on 29.03.2009, with the demand that either the price of the car be refunded or a new car be made available.
3. Complaint was contested and separate replies were filed by all the opposite parties. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed appellant/opposite party No.3, i.e. to say the financier of the vehicle, to refund `4.13 lacs to respondent No.1 (complainant), with interest and also to pay compensation and costs, as aforesaid.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. A bare reading of the complaint, which respondent No.1 filed against respondents No.2 & 3 and the appellant, shows that his grievance was only with regard to manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the relief claimed by him was against respondents No.2 & 3. In the relief clause also, he very categorically stated that respondents No.2 & 3, who were impleaded as opposite parties No.1 & 2, be directed to refund the price of the car and also to pay compensation and interest etc. Neither there was any allegation against the present appellant, who was impleaded as opposite party No.3, nor had any relief been claimed against it. It appears that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without even going through the pleadings of the parties, leave alone application of mind.
6. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum, with a direction to decide the same afresh, after going through the pleadings/evidence and hearing all the parties.
7. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member June 20, 2013.
DC Dhiman) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?