State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., vs Sidharth Gaind on 16 January, 2009
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: 16-01-2009 Appeal No. FA-436/2006 (Arising from the order dated 22-03-2006 passed by District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No.927/2005) M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., -Appellant 9th Floor, Roots Tower, Plot No.7, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Through its A/R Mr. Krishan Grower. Versus 1. Sh. Sidharth Gaind, -Respondent No.1 R/o 148-Delhi Kamla Nagar, New Delhi. 2. Chintu Car Point -Respondent No.2 17, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, 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) On account of having sold a Mitsubishi Lancer car to the respondent with imperfect title which was found to be a case property of a theft case, the appellant has been directed to refund the entire cost of the car of Rs. 5,50,000/- against delivery of vehicle and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The impugned order is an ex-parte order though the appellant was proceeded ex-parte after having filed reply.
4. Bare facts are that the respondent purchased a Mitsubishi Lancer car bearing registration NO. DL-7A-0022 from appellant through respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The said vehicle was financed by ICICI Bank. The said vehicle was transferred in the name of respondent No.1 by transport department on 16-01-2002. The respondent No.1 was enjoying the possession of the vehicle without any problem till 28-07-2005. Suddenly, the respondent No.1 got a notice u/s 160 and 175 of Cr. P.C. from P.S. I.P. Estate in connection with FIR No. 320/04 u/s 420/268/471/120 BIPC with the direction to appear before the concerned investigation officer. He appeared before the concerned officer who immediately seized the vehicle on 28-07-2005 on the ground that vehicle is required in the above noted case. The vehicle was released in favour of respondent No.1 on furnishing supredari. There is also civil litigation in respect of the above vehicle between the previous owner of vehicle, respondent No.1 and appellant. Respondent No. 1 prayed for directions against appellant to take possession of the vehicle, refund the amount of vehicle, cost and compensation.
5. The main plea of the appellant was lack of privty of contract between it and respondent No.1. Further that it had sold the vehicle to respondent No.2 who in turn sold the vehicle to respondent No.1. It is admitted case that there was no problem for 4 long years and respondent had been using the vehicle for four years and it was for some short period the vehicle was seized by the police but was later on returned to the respondent No.1 on supredari.
6. Since the respondent No.1 had enjoyed the fruits of the vehicle by using it continuously for more than four years it was not justified on the part of the District Forum to direct the appellant to refund the entire cost of the vehicle which by then might have undergone depreciated value. Even if the allegations of the respondent were found to be correct still the fact remains that respondent No.1 should have been awarded adequate compensation for having suffered some harassment or mental agony or physical discomfort or financial loss. Since the vehicle is still in the possession of the respondent No.1 as he had obtained supredari, appeal is partly allowed to the extent that appellant shall refund the cost of the vehicle less 10% depreciated value per year only on return of the vehicle to the appellant.
7. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
8. Order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
9. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. 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.
13. Announced on 16th January 2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj