State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Chaman Lal. vs Anand Trucking Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. on 10 December, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Revision Petition No.: 01/2019
Date of Presentation: 24.11.2018
Order Reserved On : 24.09.2019
Date of Order : 10.12.2019
......
Chapman All son of Shri Krishna Dass resident of VPO Samoh
Tehsil Jhandutta District Bilaspur (H.P).
...... Revisionist/Complainant
Versus
1. Anand Trucking Private Limited resident of Village Ratt
(Kothipura) Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur (H.P).
......Non-revisionist No.1/Opposite party No.1
2. Dailmler India Commercial Vehicle (P) Ltd. Orgadam
Chennai through its Managing Director Pin-602105.
......Non-revisionist No.2/Opposite party No.2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Revisionist : Mr. Umesh Kanwar Advocate.
For Non-revisionist No.1: Mr. Praveen Kumar Chauhan
Advocate.
For Non-revisionist No.2 : Mr. Rajat Sahotra Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT :
O R D E R:-
1. Present revision petition is filed by complainant against interim order dated 24.07.2018 passed by learned District Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No.135/ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.01/2019 2016 titled Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Chaman Lal complainant filed consumer complaint pleaded therein that in the month of June 2014 complainant purchase vehicle No.HP-69A-1872 from opposite party No.1 after payment of consideration amount. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of vehicle in question and opposite party No.1 is dealer of vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that it was assured that mileage of vehicle in question would be 9 Km per litre petrol in plane area and 5 Km per litre in hilly area. It is pleaded that factually mileage of vehicle in question is 5 Km per litre in plane area and 3 Km per litre in hilly area. It is further pleaded that there was manufacturing defect in vehicle in question. Complainant sought relief for replacement of vehicle in question with new one. In addition complainant sought relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.500000/-(Five lac) for mental agony and harassment. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra opposite party No.1 filed version pleaded therein that no assurance was given to complainant at the time of purchase that mileage of vehicle would be 9 Km per litre petrol in plane area and 5 Km per litre in hilly area. 2
Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.01/2019 It is further pleaded that complainant purchased vehicle according to his own free will. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that contract between opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 was on the concept of principal to principal basis. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of vehicle in question and warranty was given for stipulated period. It is further pleaded that consume Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the present consumer complaint because vehicle in question utilized for commercial purpose. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. During pendency of consumer complaint complainant filed application for amendment of complaint to the effect that complainant purchased vehicle in question for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment by way of plying vehicle in question himself in the capacity of owner -cum- driver.
6. Application filed for amendment of consumer complaint was resisted by opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant has not shown any sufficient cause for not pleading in original consumer complaint that vehicle was 3 Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.01/2019 purchased for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. It is pleaded that amended application has been filed at a belated stage. It is further pleaded that present application be dismissed on the concept of "Dura lex sed lex"
(The Law is hard but it is the law). Prayer for dismissal of application sought.
7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 did not file independent response and adopted response filed by opposite party No.2. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission dismissed the application for amendment. Feeling aggrieved against interim order complainant/revisionist filed present revision petition before State.
8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
9. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition and whether proposed amendment is necessitated by law of Consumer Protection Act.
2. Final order.
4
Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.01/2019 Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
10. Submissions of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that proposed amendment is necessitated by law i.e. Consumer Protection Act and on this ground revision petition filed by revisionist be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that amendment could be allowed if following conditions are fulfilled (1) That proposed amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of consumer proceedings (2) That proposed amendment is necessitated by law (3) That omission in the original consumer complaint was bonafide in nature (4) That proposed amendment could be allowed without injustice to adverse party.
11. State Commission is of the opinion that proposed amendment is necessitated by law of Consumer Protection Act. State Commission is of the opinion that proposed amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and omission on the part of complainant was bonafide in nature and was not intentional in nature. State Commission is of the opinion that proposed amendment could be allowed without injustice to adverse party. See AIR 1957 Apex Court 357 titled L.J. Leach Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Messrs Jardine Skinner and Co. See AIR 1958 Apex Court 245 titled Sathappa Chettiar Versus Ramanathan Chettiar. See AIR 5 Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.01/2019
1969 Apex Court 1267 titled Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Versus National Building Material Supply Gurgaon. See AIR 1967 Apex court 96 titled A.K Gupta and Sons Versus Damodar Valley Corporation.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that proposed amendment would change nature of original consumer complaint and on this ground revision petition be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that proposed amendment would not change nature of original consumer complaint. State Commission is of the opinion that proposed amendment is necessitated by law of Consumer Protection Act. State Commission is of the opinion that omission on the part of complainant was bonafide in nature and was not intentional in nature.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that application for amendment filed at belated stage and on this ground revision petition be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that amendment could be allowed at any stage of proceedings and even amendment could be allowed at appellate stage of the matter. State Commission is of the opinion that if the proposed amendment is allowed then no prejudice will be caused to opposite parties because opposite parties will be 6 Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.01/2019 compensated with heavy costs and due opportunity will be granted to opposite parties to file amended version and to adduce evidence by way of affidavits upon amended version. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to allow revision petition. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
14. In view of findings upon point No.1 revision petition is allowed subject to the costs of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand). Interim order of learned DCF/DCC dated 24.07.2018 is set aside subject to costs of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand). Costs will be paid to opposite parties in equal shares before learned DCF/DCC.
15. It is further ordered that Learned DCF/DCC shall give opportunity to opposite parties to file amended version and thereafter learned DCF/DCC shall give opportunity to complainant to adduce additional evidence upon amended complaint by way of affidavits. Thereafter learned DCF/DCC shall give opportunity to opposite parties to adduce rebuttal additional evidence upon amended consumer complaint by way of affidavits. Thereafter learned DCF/DCC shall obtained rebuttal evidence of complainant upon amended consumer complaint by way of affidavits. Thereafter learned DCF/DCC 7 Chaman Lal Versus Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. R.P. No.01/2019 shall dispose of consumer complaint finally strictly as per laws and proved facts. Observations shall not effect merits of consumer complaint in any manner. Learned DCF/DCC shall issue notices to learned Advocates engaged by parties before learned DCF/DCC. Learned DCF/DCC shall dispose of consumer complaint within three months after receipt of file. Be listed before learned DCF/DCC on date 20.12.2019.
16. Certified copy of order be sent to learned DCF/DCC for information forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of cost strictly as per rules. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Suita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member 10.12.2019 K.D 8