National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Dada Motors Ltd. vs Suresh Kumar on 10 January, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 836 OF 2011 (From the Order dated 30.09.2010 in Appeal No. 678/2005 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) M/s Dada Motors Ltd. Petitioner Savitri Complex G.T. Road Dholewala Ludhiana Through its Auth. Signatory-cum-Law Officer Mr. Inder Mohan Pal Sigh Versus Suresh Kumar Respondent S/o Sh. Banwari Lal C/o M/s Subhash Chander & Co. Ganna Bazar Ferozepur Cantt. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate Pronounced on : 10th January 2012 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER There is a delay of 23 days in filing this revision petition. Heard Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay is condoned and the revision petition is taken up for consideration.
2 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who was OP No.2 before the District Forum. The respondent herein is the complainant. OP No.1 is Firozepur Branch/office of the petitioner company but it has not been made party by the petitioner either while filing its appeal before the State Commission or in the present revision petition.
3. The facts of this case, according to the respondent, may be briefly stated as follows. The respondent had approached OP No.1 for the purchase of a new Tata Indigo diesel car of 2005 model on 15.1.2005. The car was not in stock of OP No.1 at Ferozepur. However, after receiving Rs.60,000/- in cash from the respondent, OP-1 assured the respondent to receive the delivery of the aforesaid car from the petitioner. Respondent obtained a loan from Bank of Punjab, Ferozepur and purchased the car for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Draft of that amount was handed over to the petitioner and after receiving the full amount, a Tata Indigo Diesel LS Euro-II car bearing Chasis no.6011144AUZP02899 and Engine no.4751DT121AUZP01602 was delivered to the respondent on 15.1.2005 by the petitioner and Invoice no.1579 with form no.22 was also issued by the petitioner in which the month and year of manufacture of the aforesaid car was mentioned as January 2005. Respondent was also offered by the petitioner a new car of 2004 model on discount but the respondent did not agree to this offer because he wanted to purchase a car of 2005 model only. Respondent came to know from the registration certificate that the year of the manufacture of the car in dispute was 2004 and not 2005. Feeling deceived by this act on the part of the petitioner, he filed a complaint with the District Forum for a direction to the petitioner to replace the car by a model of 2005 and also prayed for refund of insurance charges, registration charges as well as the expenses which he had spent for the delivery of the car from Ludhiana. It was prayed that the appellant may also be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as mental harassment, Rs.5,500/- as counsel fee and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent.
4. The petitioner resisted the claim by filing his written reply and raised some preliminary objections that the vehicle in dispute was manufactured in the year 2005. It was submitted that the bills/invoice issued by Tata Motors Ltd. in favour of the petitioner on 9.1.2005 which clearly shows that the year of manufacture of the car was 2005. Insurance certificate was also issued by the Tata Motors which shows that the vehicle in question was of the year 2005. It was further pleaded that the date of manufacture of the vehicle in question had been mentioned as 26.12.2004 in the invoice due to typographical mistake.
5. The District Forum after hearing the parties and on the basis of documents before it, accepted the complaint with Rs.2,000/- as costs and the appellant was directed to replace the vehicle in question with a new vehicle of 2005 and to refund Rs.16,448/- and Rs.5,000/- spent on insurance and registration of the vehicle in question with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of their expenditure till realization. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent as compensation for mental harassment. The petitioner challenged this order of the District Forum by filing an appeal against the same before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (Chandigarh), (State Commission for short). The State Commission partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and in modification of the aforesaid order of the District Forum directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent as lumpsum. Not feeling satisfied with the partial acceptance of its appeal, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 30.9.2010 passed by the State Commission.
6. We have heard Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record before us. Learned counsel has contended that the vehicle was sold at Ludhiana and not at Ferozepur and hence the District Forum, Ferozepur before whom the complaint was filed did not have jurisdiction in the matter and hence the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that mentioning of 26.12.2004 as the date of manufacture in the invoice was because of some typographical mistake and there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner and hence the impugned order of the State Commission under which the petitioner has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is not justified and deserves to be set aside.
7. In this case, it is to be noted that based on the facts emanating from the documents before them, both the fora below have returned concurrent finding of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner while selling the car in question. Perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the State Commission has already considered all the relevant documents as also the pleas raised by the petitioner and accordingly granted relief in favour of the petitioner by modifying the order of the District Forum while partly accepting the appeal of the petitioner. The plea regarding the jurisdiction of District Forum, Ferozepur was not taken in the pleadings by the petitioner before the District Forum and hence the same cannot be permitted at this stage. The State Commission while partly accepting the appeal of the petitioner has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:-
10. So from the perusal of above two documents, it is proved beyond doubt that car in dispute was sold by the manufacturer to the appellant on 26.12.2004. The version of the respondent is also proved from the Registration Certificate which was issued by the Registration Authority in which the year of manufacturer of the car was mentioned as 2004. It is also not the version of the appellant that the registration authority had wrongly mentioned the manufacturing year of the car as 2004 in the Registration Certificate.
11. From the above discussions, it is proved that the version of the appellant that the year of manufacture of the car was 2005 is not correct and the appellant had tried his best to deceive the respondent as well as to the District Consumer Forum and this Commission by filing the wrong affidavits In support of its wrong version.
12. The version of the counsel for the appellant that the car in dispute was sold by the appellant to the respondent in the year 2005 and the respondent had plied the same for 5 years and as such the order of the District Forum for replacement of the car with a new car of 2005 model is not justified.
13. The respondent had also not pleaded nor it is his version that he had not plied the car. The version of the counsel for the appellant has force and we are of the view that a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in toto will be sufficient and adequate to meet the ends of justice.
14. As per the above discussions, appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and the appellant is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent as lump-sum.
15. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.14,224/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.14,224/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. The remaining amount will be paid by the appellant to the respondent within thirty days from the receipt of the copy of the order otherwise he will pay interest @9% p.a after one month till its realization.
5. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. In the circumstances, there is no case for our interference in the impugned order under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Revision petition stands dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.
(V.B. GUPTA, J) PRESIDING MEMBER (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/