National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Deepak K Raman vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors. on 19 July, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 345 OF 2005 (Against the order dated 30.01.2004 in Complaint Case No. 68 of 1997 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) Deepak K. Raman Partner Asha Garments Plot No. 51, Sector 21 ......... Appellant Narul Navi Mumbai Versus 1. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 602, Madhava Building Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Mumbai 400 051 2. Sah & Sanghi Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Giri Kunj, 11-C.N.S. Patkar Marg, ......... Respondents Mumbai 400 007 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. D.O. No. 110800 Sri Pant Bhawan Sandburst Bridge Mumbai 400 007 BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER For the Appellants : Mr. Bikash Mohanty, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 & 2: NEMO For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R. C. Mishra, Advocate Dated: 19th July, 2010 ORDER
JUSTICE R. C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai ( in short, the State Commission) in complaint case No. 68 of 1997.
By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant herein leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by the appellant with the averments and allegations that it had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Esteem LX car manufactured by M/s Maruti Udyog Limited through its dealer, Sah & Sanghi Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd. on 30.03.1996 for a total price of Rs.4,95,036/-.
The car was to be used by Mr. Deepak K. Raman, partner of the appellant-firm. After few months of the purchase of the car, the glass of the right front door of the car slipped, which was repaired by respondent No. 2 at a cost of Rs.640/-, though the car was under warranty. The complainant learnt that the car in question, which was sold to him by respondents No. 1 and 2, was an accidented vehicle and it was extensively repaired and patching work was done at the workshop of respondent No. 2 before it was sold to the complainant. The complainant represented to the respondents in that behalf and also engaged an investigator, who on verification, submitted a report that the vehicle alongwith certain other vehicles had met with accident and got damaged while in transit from the manufacturers factory to the dealer premises in Mumbai. Several parts of the vehicle in question were replaced and the vehicle was extensively repaired and thereafter passed on to the complainant as a brand new vehicle. The complainant served a notice upon the manufacturer and the dealer for replacement of the car or to pay damages but without any consequence.
The complaint was then filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,48,834.04. The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer-Maruti Udyog Limited denying the allegations in the complaint and any liability to pay any damage. It was, however, sought to be explained that it had sold the vehicle in question alongwith other vehicle to the dealer and it was the latters responsibility to in turn sell the vehicle to the purchaser. The opposite party No. 2 also denied the allegations and any liability to pay the amount as claimed by the complainant or any other amount as compensation.
The State Commission, on consideration of the respective pleas and the material brought on record, however, returned a finding that the complainant had failed to establish its case firstly on the ground that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant as a commercial entity and no cogent evidence was led to show that the vehicle was meant for the use of Mr. Deepak K. Raman, partner of the firm. Yet another ground for unsuiting the complaint was that the complainant had failed to file any affidavit in order to support the averments and allegations made in the complaint. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of his complaint, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Vikas Mohanty, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. R. C. Mishra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents No. 1 and 2 as none appeared for them at the time of hearing of the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the order of the State Commission, primarily on the ground that the findings of the State Commission, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the complaint, were based on a wholly incorrect and improper appreciation of the evidence and material on record and is also not in consonance with the settled legal position. In this connection, the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the vehicle in question was purchased in the name of the complainant-Asha Garments, a partnership firm, it was duly established on record that the vehicle in question was purchased for the use of Mr. Deepak K. Raman, partner of the firm and, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was purchased for any commercial purpose. In our view also, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission has grossly erred in reaching the finding that the vehicle having been purchased by the partnership firm was so purchased for commercial use. Merely because it has been purchased by a partnership firm, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was purchased for any commercial purpose because it was neither intended to be resold with a view to earning any profit, etc. nor for running it as a commercial transport. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the said finding of the State Commission.
4. Now, coming to the second aspect as to whether the complainant has been able to establish its case about the respondent having passed on an accidented and repaired vehicle as a new vehicle to the complainant, in our view, ample material was brought on record to show that the vehicle in question had met with an accident while in transit.
Invoice No. 004055 dated 14.03.96 for a sum of Rs.21110.12 has been brought on record to show that several parts of the vehicle in question were replaced and extensive repairs were carried out to the vehicle, including re-painting of some surface of the vehicle in question. This document should have left no doubt in the mind of the State Commission that the vehicle in question had met with an accident while in transit and was substantially repaired before it was sold to the complainant as a brand new vehicle on 30.03.1996. We do not understand why the State Commission was looking for an affidavit of the complainant to establish the case. It is a well settled proposition of law that the plaintiff or the complainant is not required to lead evidence to establish a fact which has been admitted by the respondent or is otherwise established from the material placed on record.
5. From the above voucher as also version of opposite party No. 2 filed through affidavit of Felix Louis, General Manager, it is evident that the vehicle in question got damaged and was repaired by replacing the damaged parts before it was sold to the complainant. This fact was not disclosed to the complainant when the vehicle in question was sold. On the face of the above unequivocal admission made on behalf of respondent No. 2 and the material produced on record, the State Commission should not have dismissed the complaint merely because no supporting affidavit of the complainant was filed. The allegations made in the complaint were duly established from the admission and evidence brought on record. Based on that, the State Commission ought to have recorded a finding that respondent No. 2 had passed on an accidented vehicle to the complainant, though after repairing the damage, as a brand new vehicle by charging the price of a new vehicle. In our considered opinion this not only amounts to defect and deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 2 but also amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 2(i)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In our view, for such defect/deficiency in service, at least, the complainant is entitled to reasonable compensation for the loss, injury and harassment suffered by him. The term compensation appearing in section 14 of the Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh 2004 (5) SCC 65 as under:-
The word compensation is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Act. According to dictionary it means, compensating for being compensated; thing given as recompense;.
In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or service and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him. The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.
6. Going by the above legal position, we are of the opinion that though the complainant had claimed a compensation of Rs.10,48,834.04, the said claim appears to be highly exaggerated. Therefore, in our view, the respondent No. 2-M/s Sah & Sanghi Auto Agencies Ltd., Mumbai should at least pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant for the loss, injury and harassment suffered by him due to the delivery of an accidented vehicle to him in the garb of a brand new vehicle. However, in the facts of this case, we see no deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer-M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order and finding of the State Commission dismissing the complaint is hereby set aside.
The complaint is partly allowed and the respondent No. 2 is directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant besides cost of proceeding, which we quantify at Rs.10,000/-.
The amount shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, it shall carry interest @12% per annum.
Sd/-.J. ( R. C. JAIN ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-...
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) MEMBER Naresh/