National Consumer Disputes Redressal
J.K. Bansal vs M/S. P.S. Cars (P) Ltd. on 29 March, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1466 OF 2006 (From the Order dated 3.3.2006 in Appeal No. 2074/01 of Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) J.K. Bansal S/o Sh. Tirath Raj Bansal R/o L-212, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 Petitioner Versus 1. M/s. P.S. Cars (P) Ltd. Showroom-31, UA, Bungalow Road Jawahar Nagar Delhi-110007 Through: Sh. Mukesh Jain Director, R/o H-33, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar Delhi 2. The Managing Director, Daewoo Motors India Ltd. 22, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi-110 049 Through: The Official Liquidator High Court of Delhi A-2, W-2, Curzon Road Baracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mrs. Meena Chaudhary Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Satish Bajaj PRONOUNCED ON: 29.03.2011 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT Complainant Petitioner not satisfied with the Order passed by Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission), Delhi partly allowing Appeal No. 2074/01, has filed this Revision Petition.
Facts:
Petitioner booked a Matiz SS Model Car with PS Cars Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.1 before the District Forum) Respondent No.1 herein who was the dealer of Daewoo Motors India Ltd. Respondent No.2 (Oppoiste Party No.2) by depositing Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt No.2672 on 31.12.1999. Remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on 6.2.2000 after getting loan from a finance company. Respondent No.1 gave assurance to the Petitioner that the car will be delivered within 3-4 days whereas it was delivered only 13th February, 2000. After the delivery of the car, It was found that the speedo-meter of the car showed meter reading of 160 kms. while the warranty registration slip showed a mileage at 58 kms. After one week the vehicle broke down. Petitioners brother who was driving somehow managed to bring the vehicle to his residence. Help Line of the Respondents was informed but it did not attend the complaint and on the next date Respondent No.1 sent some mechanic who could neither rectify the defect nor could tow away the vehicle to the workshop. According to the allegations made in the complaint, Petitioner laid hand upon a slip showing that the vehicle was earlier delivered to one Rahul Tayal (Opposite Party No.3 before the State Commission) before being delivered to the Petitioner. Petitioner being aggrieved that a second hand car was sold to him, filed the complaint before the District Forum.
The Opposite Parties filed separate written statements. Respondent No.1 admitted that it had received Rs.3,00,000/- from the Complainant. It denied the allegation that an assurance was given that the car would be delivered within 3-4 days. That the waiting period for the delivery of the car was 3-4 weeks and the car was delivered on 13.2.2000. It denied the allegation that it had earlier delivered the car to Rahul Tayal. It was stated that there was no deficiency in service.
Respondent No.2 - M/s. Daewoo Motors India Ltd. in its reply stated that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the Respondent No.2. That the car in question was delivered to Respondent No.1 through invoice cum delivery challan on 28.1.2000 and then Respondent No.1 delivered the car to the complainant on 13.2.2000. That the Respondent No.2 has no say or control in regard to allotment and delivery of car after the same was handed over to Respondent No.1.
Opposite Party No.3 did not file any written statement but statement of Rahul Tayal, proprietor of Opposite Party No.3 was recorded wherein he admitted that Respondent No.1 had delivered one SS Model light blue colour Matiz to them in the end of January 2000 for three-four days at the time of his marriage and the car was returned to Respondent No.1.
District Forum disposed of the complaint by its order dated 18th December, 2001 by giving the following directions:
OP No.1 is directed to refund to the complainant Rs.1435/-, out of the amount of Rs.5600/- charged from the complainant after deducting Rs.200/- for number plate and Registration charges of Rs.3965/- with 10% interest from the date of payment till the date of refund. OP is further directed to pay 10% interest to the complainant on the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited on 6.2.2000 till the date of delivery i.e. on 13.2.2000 as OP No.1 was responsible for delay in the delivery of the car which was delivered by the OP No.2 to the dealer on 28.1.2000. This is in addition to the compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The above order should be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which action u/s 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 will be taken against the respondents.
Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission taking into consideration the fact that speedo-meter of the vehicle showed a reading at 160 ksms while the warranty registration slip showed mileage at 58 Kms. coupled with the fact that the vehicle had earlier been handed over to Rahul Tayal, came to the conclusion that Respondent No.1 was guilty of unfair trade practice as it had sold a second hand vehicle to the Petitioner. State Commission after observing that Respondent No.2 M/s. Daewoo Motors had already gone into liquidation and official liquidator had taken over the assets of the company and that most the member of the Board of Directors of the Company had already died and there were only three widows remained, partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum directing Respondent No.2 - M/s. Daewoo Motors to refund the cost of the car on the return of the car by the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 - M/s. P.S. Cars Pvt. Ltd. was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and harassment Petitioner, not satisfied with the Order passed by the State Commission filed the present Revision Petition.
Counsel for the parties have been heard.
Neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has come to the conclusion that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the absence of any finding regarding manufacturing defect, manufacturer could not be asked to reimburse the cost of the vehicle.
State Commission has recorded the findings that the Respondent No.1 was guilty of committing unfair trade practice as it had sold a second had car to the Petitioner. That Speedo-meter of the car showed meter reading at 160 kms. while the warranty registration slip showed mileage at 58 kms. That the Respondent No.1 had earlier handed over the vehicle to Rahul Tayal. State Commission had erred in absolving Respondent No.1 of the liability to replace the second hand vehicle sold to the Petitioner with a new one. The fault lay with Respondent No.1 and not Respondent No.2.
Since Respondent No.1 was guilty of committing unfair trade practice of selling second hand car to the Petitioner, in all fairness it is Respondent No.1 alone, who should be made liable to refund the cost of the car on return of the car by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 Accordingly, the directions issued by the State Commission directing Respondent No.2 to refund the cost of the car is set aside and instead Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the cost of the car to Petitioner on the return of the car by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1.
We are not inclined to award interest on the amount ordered to be refunded as the car had remained in the possession of the Petitioner all this time. But in our view, compensation of Rs.25000/- towards mental agony and harassment awarded by the State Commission to the Petitioner, is grossly inadequate.
Petitioner has been suffering for the last 11 years. For the unfair trade practice committed by the Respondent No.1 by selling a second hand car to the Petitioner, we are of the view that the Petitioner needs to be adequately compensated.
Accordingly we increase the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-.
The Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER