State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Pramod Kumar. vs Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. ... on 5 August, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Consumer Complaint No.: 09/2015
Date of Presentation: 31.07.2015
Date of Decision: 05.08.2015
................................................................................
Pramod Kumar, Son of Shri Kesar Singh,
Resident of Village Kuthar, Post Office Beer,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
.... Complainant
Versus
1. Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Bharat,
Registered Office: SIPCOT Industrial Growth Center,
Oragadam, Mathur, Post Office Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu - 602 105,
Through its Managing Director.
2. C.E.O., Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,
Corporate Office at Unit 201, 2nd Floor, Campus 3B,
RMZ Millennia Business Park No.143, Dr. M.G.R. Road,
Perungudi, Chennai - 600 096.
3. Anand Trucking Pvt. Ltd.,
Authorized Dealer Bharat Benz,
R/o Village Ratt, Post Office Kothi Pura,
Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur- 174 001,
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
4. Indus Ind Bank Ltd.,
Branch Gutkar, Village and Post Office Gutkar,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.,
Through its Manager.
... Opposite Parties
.......................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Pramod Kumar Vs. Daimler India Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.09/2015)
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Complainant: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Nemo.
................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 12 (sic. it should have been Section
17) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the opposite parties to replace the truck, which he (complainant), purchased from opposite party No.3, because of its having some manufacturing defects, and also seeking compensation to the tune of `15,80,000/-, for the loss of earnings, for a period of ten months, another sum of `6,53,000/-, by way of compensation, for the expenditure he has allegedly incurred for driving a defective vehicle, besides seeking `5.00 lacs, on account of compensation for mental harassment, torture etc.
2. Complainant purchased a truck for `12,78,000/-, from opposite party No.3 on 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? 2 Pramod Kumar Vs. Daimler India Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.09/2015) 29.05.2014. According to the complainant, truck suffers from manufacturing defect and it started giving trouble from the very beginning. Matter was brought to the notice of opposite parties, who replaced its engine and also paid a sum of `2,04,000/- to the complainant, on account of compensation for the non-use of truck for a period of three months, or in other words, for the loss of earnings from the truck, for a period of three months. Engine of the vehicle was replaced with a new one on 10.10.2014, but even thereafter, the truck has not been giving satisfactory service and its engine has again ceased. Total valuation, for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction, has been done at `35,11,000/-.
3. Vehicle was purchased by the complainant for a sum of `12,78,000/-. That means, the complainant can claim refund of `12,78,000/-, on account of value of the truck, in case he succeeds in showing that vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. According to him, 3 Pramod Kumar Vs. Daimler India Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.09/2015) he has suffered loss of earnings to the tune of `15,80,000/-, for a period ten months. He has stated that for the loss of income of three months, he has been paid a sum of `2,04,000/-, against Annexure C-7. Annexure C-7, shows that only a sum of `74,000/-, has been paid to the complainant, which means that according to the complainant's own document, loss of earnings admitted by opposite party No.3 is to the tune of `24,800/- approximately, because a sum of `74,000/-, has been paid for the loss of earnings for three months.
4. Also, the complaint has placed on record Annexure C-5, showing his monthly earnings from operation of truck. As per this document, the truck was taken to Leh four times and he was paid `22,000/-, per trip and on return journey, he again brought some goods and was paid at the rate of `12,000/-, per return trip. That means, the total fare, received by the complainant in a month, was to the tune of `1,36,000/-. 4 Pramod Kumar Vs. Daimler India Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.09/2015) According to Annexure C-5, a sum of `30,000/-, was spent on diesel, `72,000/- were spent on the salary and expenses of the driver. That means, out of the total fare, received by him, a sum of `1,02,000/-, had been spent on fuel and wages of the driver. In addition, the vehicle was subjected to wear and tear of the tyres, expenses on engine oil, brake oil and routine servicing. This expenditure should not be less than 1% of the cost of truck, per month, especially when it was being driven on hilly road between Manali & Leh and that too, four trips a month. That means, another sum of `12,000/-, is required to be excluded on this score. Net income, thus, works out at `22,000/-. That means, net income of the complainant per his own showing, was only to the tune of `22,000/-, per month and multiplied by ten, the number of months for which period, vehicle remained un- functional, the total amount comes to `2,20,000/-.
5. Now, when the complainant is claiming compensation for loss of earnings, he cannot, at 5 Pramod Kumar Vs. Daimler India Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.09/2015) the same time, claim compensation for having been forced to drive a defective truck. For harassment, of course, he may be entitled to some amount of money, but that amount of money, would be equal to a very small percentage of money, claimed by him on account of loss of earnings. Figure cannot be more than `50,000/-.
6. Total claim of the complainant, when seen in the light of above discussion, should not be more than `15.00 lacs to `16.00 lacs. The claim, as made in the complaint, is over-exaggerated and highly inflated, probable with a view to bringing the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Hon'ble National Commission in a similar matter, where the value of plot was just `7,36,250/-, but the claim had been highly inflated and complaint was filed before it, held that complaint had been over-valued and with this observation, it was sent to the learned District Forum, for disposal according to the law. Citation 6 Pramod Kumar Vs. Daimler India Commercial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(C.C. No.09/2015) is Rajni Gupta Vs. DLF Universal Limited, III (2015) CPJ 149 (NC).
7. Consequently, complaint is ordered to be sent to the learned District Forum, Mandi, for disposal according to law. A copy of this order be also sent to the learned District Forum along with the complaint.
8. Complainant is directed to appear before the learned District Forum, Mandi, on 14.08.2015.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member August 05, 2015.
N Mehta} 7