State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Geeta Gupta vs Sahara India Pariwar on 15 May, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 1409/2011 Smt.Geeta Gupta w/o Sitaram Gupta r/o Gulab Bagh Near Manav Ashram, Behind Oswal School, Alwar. Vs. Sahara India Pariwar , 16 Tej Mandi, Alwar through its Branch Manager & ors. 15.05.2012 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra- Member
Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member Mr.Anil Kumar Jain for Mr. Prakash Thakuria counsel for the appellant Mr.Purshotam Sharma counsel for the respondents BY THE STATE COMMISSION The appeal is directed against the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by the District Forum, Alwar by which the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed.
The controversy appears to be very short. The appellant under a particular scheme of the respondents deposited Rs.400/-
2per month in three accounts. On maturity of the particular bonds the entire payment was made to the appellant on 11.2.2008. Under the Income Tax Act the TDS for the relevant year i.e. 2007-2008 was deducted and deposited by the respondents on 31.3.2008 however, the TDS certificate was not issued to the appellant inspite of repeated representations and ultimately the certificate was issued to the appellant only on 13.06.2009. It has been alleged that in absence of TDS certificate, the benefit of tax already deducted for the relevant period was not given to the appellant for the relevant year.
The only contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has been that since the appellant had not given PAN Number, the certificate could not be issued to the appellant in time. The contention so made by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted since as per the certificate as issued by the respondents on 7.4.2008 there has been clear mention of the PAN Number also. No reasons whatsoever has been given as to once the certificate has been prepared on 7.4.2008 itself the same was not issued to the appellant till 13.06.2009. There appears to be a clear case of deficiency in service.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.6.2011 passed by the District Forum, Alwar is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. 2144/- to the appellant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till the payment is made. Apart from that the appellant deprived of tax benefit for the relevant period and since the respondents have also not come with clean hands, under the circumstances the 3 respondents are further directed to make payment of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant as against mental agony and other expenses alongwith the payment as directed above. The compliance may be made within thirty days.
Member Member President nm BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 310/2011
1. Tata Motors Ltd. Through Senior Law Officer, regd. Office Bombay House 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai 400001
2. M/s.Mudgal Moors through Partner Ramakant Mudgal, Bypass Parbatpura, N.H. 8, Ajmer.
........Appellants/ non-applicants Vs. Ranjeet Singh Chaudhary s/o Vijaykaran Chaudhary r/o S-90 Vijay Satira, St.Stephen Road, Makarwali Road, Ajmer.
.......Respondent/ complainant 15.05.2012 Before:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar- President Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra- Member Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member Mr.Puneet Sharma ....counsel for the appellants Mr.S.P.Gandhi ...... counsel for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION
1. The appeal has been filed by the appellants/non-applicants 2 against the judgment dated 12.1.2011 of the learned District Forum,Ajmer in Complaint Number 294/2008 whereby the complaint of the complainant/respondent ( hereinafter referred to as ' the complainant ' ) was allowed and the appellants were directed to provide the complainant a new car or its cost of Rs.8,07,750/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase and Rs.2500/- as cost of proceedings.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant purchased a new Indigo Excel Grand Euro III car from appellant no.2 on 30.06.2007 for Rs. 8,07,750/-. Four to five days after the purchase of the aforesaid car, the same started creating trouble and causing lot of problems to the complainant. The car was sent to the Service Centre from time to time on short duration but the defects could not be removed. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the learned District Forum which was allowed and the impugned order was passed.
3. The appellants admitted the purchase of the car by the complainant but alleged that though the complainant made certain complaints about the car four to five days after the purchase of the car but it is apparent from the record that the car had already run about 4404 kms.
in just nine days, which shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the car though there were petty complaints about the car which was rectified by the appellants from time to time.There was neither any manufacturing defect in the car nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants while repairing the car of the complainant. It appeared that lot of dust had entered in the turbo of the engine during a short span. Moreover, the vehicle was used by the complainant on rough roads which caused damages to the car and required repairs 3 and the same was performed by the appellants from time to time and there was neither any manufacturing defect in the car nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants but the learned District Forum ignored the facts submitted by the appellants and erred in granting the relief against the facts and provisions of law, therefore, the appeal be allowed.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and examined the entire record and the judgment of the learned District Forum.
5. It appears from the complaint and the affidavits submitted by the complainant that four to five days after the purchase of the luxury Indigo car by the complainant on 30.06.2007, it had developed some defects in the gear box and the doors of the car which were repaired by the appellants on 09.07.2007 but thereafter the vehicle again started creating problems of ignition and the car was sent by the complainant to the Service Station on 24.07.2007 and the turbo charger of the engine was repaired on 30.07.2007. Again the car started creating trouble on 11.08.2007 and then two days after , it was again causing problems. From the record, it appears that the newly purchased car was sent frequently for the repairs as it was causing lot of problems. In a short duration, the car had developed problems of leakage of engine oil when it had hardly run 6942 kms. only. The car also got problems with the AC system.
6. Thus, it is apparent that the newly purchased car developed many problems from time to time. Though the defects were removed by the appellants but we are in agreement with the findings and conclusion given by the learned District Forum that 4 the act and conduct of the appellants amounted to unfair trade practice by selling a defective luxury car to the complainant. The car did not work properly even after frequent repairs performed by the appellants and the learned District Forum rightly appreciated the facts, evidence and law in the present matter and the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum does not call for any interference in it and the impugned order deserves to be affirmed.
7. The impugned judgment and order of the learned District Forum is affirmed. The appellants shall provide the complainant with a new Indigo Excel Grand Euro III car in its place or would make the payment of Rs.8,07,750/- i.e. the cost of the car with 9% interest from the date of purchase of the car and cost of Rs.2500/- as directed by the learned District Forum but looking to the facts and circumstances of the matter, the complainant/respondent owner of the car is also directed that he would return the car to the appellants who would be at liberty to dispose it off as per their wishes. There will be no order as to cost of the present appeal. The compliance of the order be made within 30 days. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Member Member President nm