National Consumer Disputes Redressal
K.A. Nagamani vs Tata Motors & Anr. on 22 March, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2635 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 20/08/2019 in Appeal No. 383/2019 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. K.A. NAGAMANI C/O. S N KAUSHIK, 43, GAGAN VIHAR, DELHI-110051 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TATA MOTORS & ANR. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, 338, F.I.E. PATPARGANJ INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110092 2. CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD. (TATA MOTORS SUBSIDIARY) THROUGH ITS ASST GENERAL MANAGER, 338, F.I.E. PATPARGANJ INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110092 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MS. K.A. NAGAMANI, IN PERSON FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. ANKIT CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE
MR. SHUBHAM AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
MR. ASHISH MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2.
Dated : 22 March 2024 ORDER
JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER
This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in First Appeal No. 383/2019, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased a Tata Nano car with registration No. DL4C-AL-4345, being attracted by the public advertisements promoting the car model. However, the car failed to meet the expectations set by those advertisements, despite the Complainant ensuring the periodical scheduled services. Various issues arose with the car, including problems with engine start, excessive battery drainage, inadequate cooling in the air conditioning system, issues with the steering lock, and various other defects. Aggrieved by such repeated breakdowns and defects in the car, she filed her complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Delhi.
3. During the course of proceedings before the Ld. District Forum, the Petitioner filed three IAs for Discovery and Production of certain documents under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking documents pertaining to issues that were raised in the complaint, and to secure admission on certain facts raised in the Written Statement. She also filed an Application under Section 13(4)(i) of the Act to ascertain the basis of allegedly insulting comments about the mental status of the Complainant in the Affidavit filed by Manager Law of Respondent No. 1. These Applications were dismissed by the Ld. District Forum vide order dated 29.05.2019 and cost of Rs. 5,000/- for two of the IAs was also imposed on her. Thereafter she appealed against the Order before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 20.08.2019 dismissed her Appeal. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -
"17. On merits the counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no requirement of 'fair play' under Section 13 (4) (ii) Consumer Protection Act. I am not impressed by the arguments. Requirement of fairness is inherent in every law and procedure. It is not required to be mentioned in the statute book.
18. Counsel for the appellant urged that discovery by interrogatories has to be understood as discovery by document. I am unable to subscribe. No word can be added to statute while interpreting it...............
23. Regarding application for summoning witness, the contention of the appellant is that District Forum confused itself between manager Law and Manager Legal. The arguments is misconceived. , What District Forum has held is that Manager Legal has simply signed the WS. The supporting affidavit is not evidence, not substitute of examination in Chief, Without that he can not be summoned for cross examination.
24. The discovery, interrogatory sought by the appellant are in the nature of fishing inquiry/ roving inquiry. Same are aimed at dragging the litigation and making the same more and more complicated.
25. The appeal fails and is dismissed in limine..."
4. The Petitioner appearing in-person has argued that her Applications for discovery, interrogatories, and summons are not fishing enquiries but rather seek relevant information within the confines of Section 30 and Order XI of the CPC, Section 3, and Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act. She emphasized that these applications pertain to material "producible as evidence" arising from the Respondents' Written Statements and relate to information exclusively within the knowledge and possession of the Respondents, which she cannot obtain from the public domain, particularly regarding quality tests and prototype approval; She contended that the impugned Order contradicts the judgment of the Delhi High Court in "A K Aggarwal v. Shanti Devi, 1996 RLR 60" which stated that Section 36 extends beyond the production of documents and includes the power to require the other party to answer interrogatories; That the impugned Order exhibits material irregularity, illegality, and failure to exercise vested jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. She challenged the observation in Para 13 of the Order, according to which three orders cannot be challenged in one appeal. The State Commission, she has asserted, had the option under Order II Rule 6 to order the filing of separate appeals through the Joinder of Cause of Action, pursuant to Order II, Rule 3 of the CPC, given that the parties and subject matter are the same and the impugned Orders were passed on the same date; The Petitioner also objected to the costs imposed by the District Forum, contending that it amounts to punishment for invoking Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, which she has argued is not intended by the legislature on account of which the District Forum had exceeded its jurisdiction.
5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has argued that that the Petitioner's actions are merely attempts to harass and seek vengeance, evident from the frivolous nature of the applications filed across multiple forums while the complaint remains pending before the District Forum. These applications lack substance and are intended to prolong the legal process without any just cause; That regarding the dismissal of the Appeal, Para 13 of the impugned Order rightly states that challenging multiple orders in one appeal is not permissible; That the applications are not maintainable as they involve complex factual and legal questions that necessitate a detailed examination and extensive evidence, more suited for resolution in a Civil Court rather than a Consumer Forum; That the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments in "Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2002) SCC 1" and "TRAI Food Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. (2004) 13 SCC 656" held that matters requiring extensive evidentiary inquiry are beyond the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act; That the application for discovery lacks relevance and materiality for adjudicating the deficiencies alleged in the complaint and the alleged deficiencies can only be substantiated by expert opinion rather than through discoveries.
6. This Commission has heard both the Petitioner in-person and Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1, and perused the material available on record.
7. It transpires that the Petitioner/Complainant is herself a practicing Advocate by profession, and her approach in pursuing her Complaint is slightly at a variance from typical complainant in Consumer Complaints, who are not presumed to be very well versed in law. Consequently, it would be appropriate to visit the material contents of the aforesaid three Applications verbatim for analyzing the same. In her Application for discovery u/s 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, she had sought a direction upon the Opposite Party No. 2 to answer the following interrogatories -
1. History of the car, i.e. problem job card of the car in exclusive possession of OP2.
2. Report of the attending Engineer/ other officials of OP2 on each occasion of filing complaint/attending to the complaint and problem reported.
3. Sales promotion advertisements in newspapers and sales promotion discount/ rebate policy/practice for the period January 2012 to September 2012.
8. Her second Application under Order 11 read with Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks answer of the Opposite Party No.1 to the following interrogatories -
1. Do the TATA MOTORS procure parts/components/assembly from outside Vendors for TATA NANO Car?
2. Do vendor conduct Alpha Testing: Beta Testing: Gamma Testing before delivery the parts/ component for fixing in TATA NANO Car? What is the significant level (Alpha) testing denoting probability of rejecting good parts (as bad/rejectable) and the Significant level (Beta) testing denoting probability of accepting bad parts (as good/acceptable) fixed by the Vendors generally and Vendor of ignition/ electric system parts/ component/ assembly in particular? (Please state the sample size, testing percentage to accept or to reject the lot i.e. Alpha, Beta level for rejection and acceptance).
3. Is there special test conducted by vendor/ TATA MOTORS to address the abnormal drainage of battery, Overcharge/overheating of battery and to ensure normal self start of TATA NANO Car? (Please state the nature of test).
4. What is the significant level (Alpha) testing denoting probability of rejecting good parts (as bad/reject able) and the Significant level (Beta) denoting probability of accepting bad parts (as good/acceptable) fixed by the Vendors of steering wheel assembly parts/ components in particular? (Please state the sample size, testing percentage to reject or to accept the lot i.e. Alpha, Beta level for rejection and acceptance).
5. Is there special test conducted by vendor/ TATA MOTORS to eliminate the probability of steering wheel locked while the TATA NANO car is in motion? (Please state the nature of test).
6. Confirm that letters seeking advice concerning probability of the Car catching fire and steering wheel getting locked while the Car is in motion in view of the persistent problems is not replied till date, and state reasons for not replying.
7. Number of TATA NANO Car recalled till date and reasons for recalling?
8. What is the rating of TATA NANO on (1) safety and (2) on trouble free vehicles?
9. Number of fire incidences in TATA NANO car taken cognizance till date?
10.Number of cases steering wheel of Tata Nano Car locked while in motion taken cognizance of till date?
11. Confirm sales and production of TATA NANO Car has drastically come down with latest figure for the last six months and Reasons for the decline in sales and production.
12. What is the probability in percentage of TATA NANO Car production is stopped?
13. What will be situation of repairs and service of the Cars in use if production is stopped?
14. List of mechanics/workshop who undertake repairs on TATA NANO within 5 km of Patparganj Industrial Area.
9. In her third Application, the Petitioner sought summoning Mr. Sharmendra Chaudhary, Manager- Law to justify his Statement on Oath, since she was apparently perturbed by the following averments in the Written Version filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties -
"i) At Para 4 "....... The Complainant is levelling false allegations without any basis and liable to face the actionboth in the domain of Civil Law and Criminal Law".
ii) At Para 8 "........ It is stated that the reasoning mentioned in this para, is mere imagination/ fragmentation of the mind of the Complainant"."
10. It is to be remembered that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are to be conducted in a summary manner, and where complicated issues involving detailed evidence arise, the matter is best left to be adjudicated by the regular Courts, although there are provisions in Consumer Protection Act to accept evidence as in a Civil Court. It is also well settled that machinery of a Court/Forum cannot be used for the purpose of 'collecting evidence in favour of any party'. Suffice it to say, a Complainant/Plaintiff is required to prove his/her own case on his own, and cannot use the Forum to compel the other side to produce any such material, that could go against him, except in a case where such material would go to falsify any specific averment made in the pleadings. But in her said Application, the Petitioner/Complainant did not refer to any such averment in the written averment to explain how the discovery on oath in relation to Item No.1 and 2 in her Application mentioned in Para 7 above were called for. Needless to mention, the third item requiring sales, promotions, advertisement on behalf of OP No.2 or its sales, promotion, discount/practice for the given period has virtually nothing to do with the personal grievance of the Complainant.
11. In the Second application for interrogatories referred to in Para 8 above, there is not a single question pertaining to own car/vehicle purchased by the complainant, and all the 14 questions, as reproduced above pertain to internal procedures of the Opposite Party regarding the quality checks or handling of defects in the vehicle manufactured by it, or otherwise, mere statistics pertaining to various vehicles sold in the market over the years have been called for, which again have no nexus with the own vehicle purchased by the complainant.
12. In the Third application in which the Law Manager of OP No.1 was sought to be summoned, this Commission is of the opinion that there is nothing objectionable at least in the extract from Para 4 of the written version quoted above, which is a normal pleading in the Written Version/Written Statements filed by the defending parties in the normal legal Fora. In relation to the extracted statement in para 8, the petitioner appears to be perturbed by the use of the words "mere imagination/fragmentation of the mind of the complainant", which according to her would intend to indicate that she is facing some kind of mental disorientation. However, it has been clarified on behalf of respondents/opposite parties that the word "fragmentation" was merely a typographical error for the word "figmentation", which was actually meant to be used. In this view of the matter, this Commission is of the opinion that once such clarification has come forth, no useful purpose would be served by summoning the Law Manager of the opposite party No.1. It would suffice if an affidavit stating this fact be filed on behalf of OP No.1, along with an amended written version in para 8 of which the word "fragmentation" may be substituted by the word "figmentation". Apart from such requirement, this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the Ld. Fora below.
13. The revision petition is accordingly, disposed off by directing the learned District Forum to amend the original written version by substituting the word "figmentation" for the word "fragmentation", originally used therein.
14. Rest of the decisions of both the Ld. Fora below are affirmed. Parties to bear their own costs
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
......................................J SUDIP AHLUWALIA PRESIDING MEMBER