State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.S. Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. vs Rama Sethi And Anr. on 16 August, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.116 of 2023
Date of institution : 21.02.2023
Reserved On : 31.07.2023
Date of decision : 16.08.2023
G.S. Autoworld Pvt. Ltd., near Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Amritsar
Bypass Road, through its Authorized Official Sh. Manmohan Singh,
Service Manager.
....Appellant/OP No.2
Versus
1. Rama Sethi wife of Sh. Sanjeev Sethi, 291, J.P. Nagar,
Jalandhar City (Punjab) 144002.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. Honda Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur
Kasana Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area,
District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) 201306.
....Respondent/OP No.1
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sanjeev Sethi, Auth. Rep. For respondent No.2 : Sh. Aditya Verma, Advocate.First Appeal No.116 of 2023 2
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT By this order of ours, two appeals i.e. First Appeal No.116 of 2023 (G.S. Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. v. Rama Sethi & Anr.) and First Appeal No.210 of 2023 (Honda Cars India India Ltd. v. Ram Sethi & Anr.) shall be disposed off as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Both the appeals have been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'Act') to challenge the common order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant was partly allowed by directing the appellants/OPs to refund the full price of the car and the complainant was also directed to return the defective car to the OPs at the time of receiving the amount of the car. Further the OPs were also directed to pay ₹15,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also to pay litigation expenses of ₹5,000/-. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.116 of 2023.
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
First Appeal No.116 of 2023 3
4. Briefly, the facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of both the appeals are that respondent No.1/complainant Smt. Rama Sethi filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging that she had purchased one Honda Amaze VMT (Petrol) car on 12.06.2018 for an amount of ₹7,97,000/- by paying the said amount through drafts against Invoice dated 12.06.2018. Further it was mentioned that there was some noise inside the cabin of the car from the very beginning. The family members of the complainant visited the Honda Service Centre on various occasions and asked the Engineers to set it right by removing the defect but nothing was done. They visited the OPs on a number of occasions for removal of the defect but it was not removed. Further it was mentioned that the Service Centre did something to remove the defect but still it was not removed. It was also mentioned that in-spite of removing the defects, the Service Engineers caused scratches on the car at various places and on one occasion, the windscreen of the car was also broken while opening the dashboard and repairing the components. Thereafter, the broken windscreen was removed. However, still the defect was not removed. It was also mentioned that the broken windscreen and the noise from the dashboard were partly repaired by them but this act has also resulted into devaluation of the new car, which has caused mental agony to the complainant. An email was also sent to the Manufacturing First Appeal No.116 of 2023 4 Company on 27.01.2019 but still all in vain and the complainant was having no option except to file the complaint.
5. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to replace the car with the new car or to refund the entire amount so paid along with interest at the market rate and also to pay an amount of ₹1 lac as compensation to the complainant.
6. Upon issuing notice of the complaint, OP No.1 appeared though his counsel and filed reply, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised stating therein that the allegations made in the complaint were frivolous and motivated. The complainant was deliberately trying to mislead the Commission by distorting the facts and by not disclosing the true/correct facts of the case. It was also mentioned in the reply that the complaint was liable to be dismissed with costs as it was not maintainable. Certain other objections were also raised about the maintainability of the complaint in view of the provisions of the Act. It was further mentioned that neither any particular/specific manufacturing defect was established nor any expert evidence was brought on record. Other averments made in the complaint were also specifically denied.
7. OP No.2 also filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by raising certain preliminary objections stating therein that the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint was not maintainable. It was also mentioned that the grievance raised in the First Appeal No.116 of 2023 5 complaint was outside the purview of the Act. Other allegations/ averments made in the complaint were also specifically denied.
8. Rejoinder to the written replies was filed by the complainant, wherein the averments made in the complaint were repeated and the stand taken by the OPs in their reply was controverted.
9. By considering the contents of the complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 14.12.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-12 is reproduced as under:
"12. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainants is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the full price of the car to the complainant and the complainant is directed to return the defective car to the OPs at the time of receiving the amount of the car. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work."
10. Said order has been challenged by the appellants/OPs by way of filing the aforesaid appeals by raising a number of arguments.
11. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.2 has submitted that the District Commission had not appreciated the material facts while passing the impugned order. The complaint of noise in the dashboard was attended and every effort was made to First Appeal No.116 of 2023 6 remove the same. It cannot be said that the complainant was not heard or he was not attended at any point of time. Even the Engineers from the Company were called and the same has been admitted in the email dated 27.01.2019. It is also not in dispute that the Technical Team of the Company had remained cooperative and efforts were made to solve the problem as pointed out by the complainant, as is apparent from Ex.3. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant had not led any expert evidence to show that it was a case of manufacturing defect in the car. The appellant has given the details of her visits and the jobs done by showing that it was a case of minor defects. The service and repairs of the car were done on each and every occasion to the satisfaction of the complainant. Even the defective parts were also replaced from time to time and the problem of noise in the dashboard of the car was solved/removed. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant was interested in free repair and due to that reason, false allegations were levelled. The District Commission has not taken into consideration the Tax Invoice Ex.2(g), which was placed on record by the complainant and as per said document, the vehicle had run 9605 kms. up to 29.05.2020 and as per Tax Invoice Annexure A-8, which was of the last visit to the workshop, the vehicle had run 25112 kms. Even on the date of passing of the impugned order on 14.12.2022, the vehicle might have run approximately 45000 kms. Learned counsel has further submitted First Appeal No.116 of 2023 7 that on last two visits i.e. 31.05.2019 and 11.08.2019 before filing the complaint, there was no complaint of noise in the dash board of the car. Therefore, the order for refund of the price of the car is not justified. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant/OP No.2 is only the dealer of the manufacturer and in case of any manufacturing defect, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant being the dealer. All these factors have not been taken into consideration by the District Commission while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Khanna Automobiles & Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar RP No.1115 of 2012 decided on 23.04.2013 (NC);
ii) M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Tirath Singh Oberoi RP No.2944 of 2008 decided on 22.11.2016 (NC);
iii) Chandeshwar Kumar v. Tata Engineering Loco Motive Co.
Ltd. FA No.703 of 2006 decided on 01.12.2006 (NC);
iv) Sushila Automobiles v. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad RP 1752 of 2006 decided on 07.05.2010; and
v) Amarjit Singh v. Auto Kruze FA No.877 of 2015 decided on 05.05.2016 (State Commission, Punjab).
12. Mr. Aditya Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.2/OP No.1 has submitted that no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant to file the complaint against OP No.1, as there was no expert evidence to prove that it was a case of any manufacturing defect. Learned counsel has further submitted that the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer is 'principal to principal' First Appeal No.116 of 2023 8 basis, according to which each party is liable for its own actions and omissions. Learned counsel has also submitted that all the minor defects in the car were attended and rectified by the dealer and there was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of OP No.1-Manufacturer. Learned counsel has also relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. Union of India 2010 SCC 165;
ii) Swaraj Mazda Ltd. v. P.K. Chakkapore & Anr. II (2005) CPJ 72;
iii) Chandeshwar Kumar v. Tata Eng Loco Motive Co. Ltd. I (2007) CPJ 2 (NC);
iv) MRF Ltd. v. Jagdish Lal & Ors. CA 2710 of 1999. 13. Mr. Sanjeev Sethi, Authorized Representative of respondent No.1/complainant has submitted that the District
Commission has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the averments made in the complaint and the evidence available on the record. It was a clear-cut case of manufacturing defect in the car and the complaint was rightly partly allowed by considering the evidence available on the record and no interference is required. It was further submitted that the appellant has made a wrong statement in the appeal regarding deposit of statutory amount at the time of filing of the appeal.First Appeal No.116 of 2023 9
14. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for all the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
15. Facts regarding filing of the complaint by the complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the appellants/OPs, partly allowing the complaint and thereafter filing of the present appeals by the appellants/OPs are not in dispute.
16. Admittedly, the car in dispute was purchased by the complainant from appellant/OP No.2 vide Tax Invoice dated 12.06.2018 (Ex.1). As per version of the complainant, there was noise in the dashboard of the car from the very beginning and this fact was brought to the notice of the OPs. The car was taken to the Honda Service Centre on a number of occasions with the request to remove the defect of noise/vibration from the dashboard but the said defect could not removed in-spite of making all the efforts as well as replacing various parts.
17. The stand of the OPs was that the minor defects, which were pointed out by the complainant, were rectified/removed from time to time to the satisfaction of the complainant but she has failed to lead any expert evidence to prove that the car in dispute was having any manufacturing defect.
18. The car was purchased on 12.06.2018 and just after one month of its purchase, the car had started giving problems. On perusal First Appeal No.116 of 2023 10 of Job Card dated 10.07.2018, it is apparent that the car was taken to the workshop of the OPs with the complaint of noise in the dashboard. Said defect was not removed and the car was again taken to the Service Centre of the OPs on 03.09.2018. The car was kept under observation and Job Card was prepared on 14.09.2018, wherein it was mentioned that there was problem of vibration in the dashboard while releasing the clutch. The car was referred to HCIL and the problem was attended by Honda Tech. Line, but the problem of noise in the dashboard could not be rectified. Further, on 10.10.2018, same problem was brought to the notice of the OPs and it was mentioned in the Job Card dated 11.10.2018 that the problem of noise was still there. An amount of ₹2,163/- was charged without rectifying the main problem of noise. The car was also taken to the workshop on 25.10.2018 and the Job Card was prepared on 26.10.2018, wherein it was mentioned that there was abnormal noise in the silencer at rear side as well as in the glove box. There was also vibration in the body of the car on reversing. Torque rod and boot were recommended to be changed and a sum of ₹6,151/- was paid by the complainant. The problem of noise still persisted and the car was again taken to the workshop of OP No.2 on 07.12.2018 and then on 23.01.2019 and the nut bolts of the dashboard were adjusted. Still the problem of noise was not rectified and the car was again taken to the workshop on 30.01.2019. The car was kept under observation and the Job Card First Appeal No.116 of 2023 11 was prepared on 05.02.2019 and col top grill was recommended to be changed. On the very next day i.e. on 06.02.2019, again there was abnormal noise in the dashboard and this fact is evident from Job Card dated 06.02.2019 Ex.2(h) and in the description, it is mentioned 'replace cowl top, set cowl top assembly FR'. The problem of noise still persisted and the car was also taken to the Service Centre on 30.05.2019 and the Job Card (Ex.R(j) was prepared on 31.05.2019, wherein it was mentioned that still there was noise in the dashboard. Battery test was conducted and an amount of ₹1,757/- had to be paid by the complainant without rectifying the defect of noise. Ultimately, the complainant sent an email dated 27.01.2019 Ex.3 to the OPs stating therein that there was manufacturing defect in the car, as different types of noises were being noticed while driving. The complainant had also visited Galaxy Honda (Honda Dealer) but the problem was not rectified permanently. It is also mentioned in the said email that even after calling the Expert Team from the Company, the problem of noise could not be solved. The complainant had also given the details of her visits to the workshop for rectifying said problem. The complainant has also mentioned in the written arguments that an expert Engineer was called by the Service Centre from the Manufacturing Company in response to her email dated 27.01.2019. Said expert has tried his level best to solve the problem but all in vain. This fact is also corroborated from the Job Cards that the car was First Appeal No.116 of 2023 12 already checked by the expert team of the manufacturer but the problem of noise was not removed.
19. The appellant has taken a wrong plea in the written arguments that on the last two visits i.e. 31.05.2019 and 11.08.2019 i.e. before filing the complaint, there was no complaint of dash board noise. On perusal of Job Card dated 31.05.2019 at Pag-51 of the appeal produced by the appellant itself, it is apparent that the noise in the dashboard was still there. However, no Job Card dated 11.08.2019 has been produced by the appellant on record, as contended in the written arguments.
20. As per the Job Cards produced along with the appeal, the car was also taken to the workshop on 11.09.2019 and as per Job Card of said date (Annexure-4), the road test was done along with the customer. The water was coming inside automatically from left hand side rear reflector and the htr (heater) was sent to HCIL. Said problem was not rectified on the said date and it was rectified only on 20.09.2019. Perusal of Job Card dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure-6) also shows that still there was noise in front suspension and both the lower arms were recommended to be replaced.
21. On perusal of the Job Cards as discussed above, it is crystal clear that the car in dispute was taken to the workshop of the OPs on a number of occasions but the noise in the dashboard/vibration etc. could not be removed even after replacing First Appeal No.116 of 2023 13 various parts. Even the expert team of the OPs had tried to rectify the problem of noise but all in vain.
22. The stand of the OPs is that the defects pointed by the complainant were rectified from time to time. However, the job cards produced along with the complaint were not signed by the complainant at the appropriate place meant for signing but her signatures appear to be there on other place of the Job Cards. Even in case it is presumed that the complainant had signed the said Job Cards, even then the problem of noise in the dashboard etc. was not removed. In case said defect was not rectified despite best efforts, then the signatures of the complainant on job cards do not make any difference. However, it is also relevant to mention that the Job Cards so produced along with the appeal are not signed by the complainant or the appellant. Except one Job Card, all other Job Cards annexed with the complaint as well as the appeal are also not signed by anyone on behalf of the appellant. No satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant has been produced in the appeal to show that the car was free from any kind of noise from the dashboard etc.
23. As far as the stand of the OPs that no expert evidence is there on record to prove that the car in dispute is having any manufacturing defect is concerned, it is relevant to mention that non- rectification of the defect of noise in the dashboard etc. despite inspection of the car by the expert team of the Company as well as First Appeal No.116 of 2023 14 despite replacing various parts on a number of occasions is sufficient to hold that there was some inherent defect in the car, which is beyond repairs.
24. The purchaser never expects that a brand new vehicle would have inherent defects from the very beginning. Non-rectification of problem of noise in the dashboard etc. despite many repairs creates a shadow of doubt on the mechanism of the car and this fact is sufficient to hold that it was a manufacturing defect in the car.
25. Any consumer desires to purchase a brand new vehicle just to avoid any unnecessary hardship and inconvenience, so that the said vehicle may work properly at least for a minimum period of two/three years.
26. The expression 'deficiency' of services is defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Now Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under:
"(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."
27. The quality, standard, purity and potency of the goods have to be considered in the light of definition of the word, "defect", as given in Section 2 (1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [now Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019], which is reproduced as under:
First Appeal No.116 of 2023 15
"(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods."
28. On perusal of above provisions of the Act, it is clear that "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. Keeping in view the above credentials, the 'defect' is to be ascertained and if such a defect occurs in a brand new vehicle, then the onus is upon the manufacturer to prove that it is/was free from any defect and the defect in the same was not a manufacturing one. The OPs have failed to rectify the defect of noise in the car despite various repairs on a number of occasions.
29. The same issue was there before the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v. Pandit Automotive Ltd. 2008 (2) CPJ 308 (NC). In that case also, the vehicle had started to give trouble within one month period of its purchase and the important parts were required to be replaced. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that in such case, principle of res ipsa loquitor would apply and the facts would speak themselves and there is no need to refer the vehicle to third party for opinion. Thus, refund of the cost of the vehicle, along with interest, was allowed. The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para- 15 is reproduced as under:
First Appeal No.116 of 2023 16
"15. In today's world there are several manufacturers and they have flooded the market with several brands of vehicles. They are also alluring the consumers by issuing advertisements in the print and electronic media making huge claims about the capacity and good quality of their vehicles introduced by them in the market. Hence, the gullible consumer who is lured by these advertisements, expects defect free smooth service at least in the first year of purchase of the car. In this case, from day one onwards the vehicle was found to be defective which was admitted by the dealer himself through his letters. Naturally, encountered with these problems the consumer must have been shell shocked compelling him to knock at the doors of the Consumer Forum. Even before the Consumer Forum in the written submissions filed by OP 1 there is a clear admission of the manufacturing defects. Hence, we are convinced that the vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects. This is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur i.e. facts speak themselves hence there is no need to refer the vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion."
30. Similarly, in another identical issue which arose before the Hon'ble National Commission in the case i.e. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. through its authorised signatory, Mr. Abhijit Kumar (Legal and Secretarial) Vs. Affiliated East West Press (Press (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, Mr. Sunny Malik, I(2008) CPJ19(NC), in which it was held as follows:-
1. The question which arises for consideration in this case is if a luxury car, namely, Accent Car CRD Diesel Model, gives trouble within one or two months of its purchase, would the consumer be satisfied with such a car? Whether the multi-national company manufacturing such a car, is justified in not replacing the car or refunding purchase price and instead engaging in protracted litigation?"
2. In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. Further, in such cases, the manufacturing Company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power.
25. In our opinion, from the admission made by the petitioner it is clear that the vehicle had gone to them on several occasions for repairs. In our view, there is no necessity for a new car to go to work shop 'on several occasions' for repairs within a short span one year of its purchase."First Appeal No.116 of 2023 17
31. In another case reported as Indochem Electronic v. Additional Collector of Customs 2006 (3) SCC 721, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 12 of Sales of Goods Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"Although in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 12 no right accrues to a purchaser to reject the goods on breach of stipulation of warranty, the same would not mean that the extent of damages cannot be equivalent to the price of the goods inasmuch as such a power has specifically been conferred upon the Commission.
It is true, where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a warranty, its breach may give rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated; but, where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, its breach may give rise not only to a claim for damages but also generally to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. [See Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition Reissue (41) Para 64] In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balabir Singh [2004 (5) SCC 65] this Court opined that under the law, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities, holding:-
"The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law"
32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the ratio of the law as discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the car in dispute was suffering from manufacturing defects from First Appeal No.116 of 2023 18 the very beginning, as the noise/vibration in the dashboard etc. could not be removed despite taking the car to the workshop of the OPs on a number of times as well as in-spite of replacing various parts.
33. As far as the stand of OP No.1-Manufacturer (appellant in First Appeal No.210 of 2023) that its relationship with OP No.2-Dealer is on 'principal to principal' basis is concerned, it is relevant to mention that it is not a case of any mis-representation on the part of the dealer etc. It is a case, where a brand new car is having various defects from the very beginning, which could not be removed despite various repairs/replacement of many parts. Therefore, both the OPs are equally liable for the sale of defective car to the complainant in- spite of paying the full price.
34. The OPs have taken the stand that the vehicle had run 25112 kms. On perusal of Tax Invoice Annexure A-8, it is apparent that up to 01.07.2022, the car had run 30254 kms. The car was purchased on 12.06.2018 and after a period of about 4 years, it had run just 30254 kms. Meaning thereby the car had run just 7563.5 kms per year. It cannot be said that the car has been comprehensively used by the complainant since its purchase. The complainant has spent huge amount on purchase of the said car and she has lost interest on said amount for said period. In such circumstances, the District Commission has rightly held the OPs liable to refund the price of the car. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the First Appeal No.116 of 2023 19 appellants are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
35. As far as the plea of the complainant that the appellant has made a wrong statement in the appeal regarding deposit of the statutory amount at the time of filing of the appeal is concerned, it is relevant to mention that in Para-29 of the appeal it is mentioned that the appellant has prayed for exemption from depositing the statutory amount of 50% of the compensation awarded by the District Commission, on the ground that 50% amount has already been deposited by the co-respondent (appellant in other appeal) in the connected appeal. However, only an amount of ₹25,000/- was deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. This issue was also raised by the Authorized Representative of the complainant during the pendency of the appeal.
36. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the complaint was filed before the District Commission on 03.09.2019 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the said Act, the statutory deposit at the time of filing of appeal was 50% of the awarded amount or ₹25,000/- whichever is less. In the present case, the appellant has deposited an amount of ₹25,000/- which is lesser than 50% of the awarded amount. In other appeal i.e. First Appeal No.210 of 2023 also, an amount of ₹25,000/- was deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of said appeal. It seems that the First Appeal No.116 of 2023 20 appellant in First Appeal No.116 of 2023 has made wrong averment in Para-29 of the appeal under some misconception but the same is not going to affect the case of the parties in any manner.
37. In view of the discussion as mentioned above, the impugned order was passed by the District Commission after proper appreciation of evidence available on the record as well as by considering the contents of the complaint and replies of the OPs. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
38. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants/OPs and both the appeals i.e. First Appeal No.116 of 2023 and First Appeal No.210 of 2023 are dismissed and the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
39. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
40. In First Appeal No.116 of 2023, the appellant had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law. First Appeal No.116 of 2023 21
41. In First Appeal No.210 of 2023, the appellant had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
42. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER August 16, 2023.
(Gurmeet S)