Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bachan Narayan Singh vs Eicher Plan And Marketing Head Quarter, ... on 14 January, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.671 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.7647 of 2015)
BACHAN NARAYAN SINGH APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
EICHER PLAN AND MARKETING HEAD QUARTER,
EICHER MOTOR LTD. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal has arisen from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) dated 16 September, 2014 in Revision Petition No.4856 of 2012. The dispute in the present case arises out of a complaint filed by the appellant – complainant of a deficiency of service in relation to a truck purchased by him.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (“District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed the first and second respondents jointly and severally to replace the engine of the truck with a new engine; refund the amount charged on account of spare parts and labour charges; pay the monthly instalments of the loan amount Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.01.21 together with accrued interest and pay compensation of 16:02:32 IST Reason: Rs.10,000/-.
2When the matter travelled to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“SCDRC”), it was held that the truck was beyond the warranty period. The SCDRC observed thus:
“...From these documents it transpires that the guarantee was for defective engine or manufacturing defects only. It is also found that the warranty period was for six months or covered mileage of 20,000 km only. The vehicle has admittedly run 34000 kms vide page 21 on 13- 06-08. The break down dated 13-06-08 was also shown to be internal part of the engine but no where it has been shown to be manufacturing defect. The 2nd break down is also not proved that it was manufacturing. We do not find it major also in view of the charges paid Rs.5,000/- and 4400/- only during this period. In view of the warranty the replacement charges after fifteen months and running 34000 kms, no violation of the warranty terms is proved.” Before the NCDRC, it emerged that the finding of fact by the SCDRC to the effect that the truck had crossed the warranty period was incorrect. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the first respondent admitted that the warranty was for a period of 36 months irrespective of the kilometers covered during the period.3
The NCDRC noted that admittedly there was a breakdown of the vehicle after 13 months of purchase.
Having regard to this finding, it is apparent that the basis on which the appeal was allowed by the SCDRC was primarily incorrect. The NCDRC, however, has come to the conclusion that the breakdown occurred after the truck had travelled 34,000 kilometers; in addition, the affidavit did not indicate which part was defective and that the appellant was not a consumer under Section 2(1)
(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The SCDRC noted that whether the appellant was a consumer was not considered by the District Forum, though an objection was raised in the written reply. The SCDRC held that the appellant was using the vehicle for commercial purposes and was, hence, not a consumer. This finding has been confirmed by the NCDRC.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant had specifically averred in the complaint that because the engine of truck was not replaced when it was submitted for repair, the business of the appellant had come to a standstill. Similarly, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the averments contained in paragraph 3A of the Revision Petition filed before the NCDRC to a similar effect.
The judgment of the SCDRC was unsatisfactory. The SCDRC recorded the submissions which were urged in the 4 appeal against the order of the District Forum. The issue as to whether the appellant is a consumer has been decided without adverting to the material circumstances and purely on an ipse dixit. Moreover, as we have noted earlier, the finding of the SCDRC that the truck was beyond the warranty period has been found to be erroneous by the NCDRC.
In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate and proper to remit the proceedings to the SCDRC for fresh consideration. To enable this exercise to be carried out, we set aside the impugned order dated 16 September, 2014 of the NCDRC and the order dated 23 November, 2012 of the SCDRC. The First Appeal No.79/2010 is accordingly restored to the file of the SCDRC for fresh disposal.
We grant liberty to the appellant to file a further and better affidavit within four weeks from today, if he is so advised, to buttress the submission that he is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents would be at liberty to file a response within a period of four weeks thereafter.
In view of the long pendency of the proceedings, we request the SCDRC to dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
5
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
.............................J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD) .............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI JANUARY 14, 2019 6 ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO.671 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7647 of 2015) BACHAN NARAYAN SINGH APPELLANT(s) VERSUS EICHER PLAN AND MARKETING HEAD QUARTER, EICHER MOTOR LTD. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(s) Date : 14-01-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Adv.
Mr. Arun Adhlakha, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Sonkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Anurag Pandey, AOR Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Varun Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. No costs.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)