National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Kataria Automiles vs Prabodhkant Damodaras Pandya & Anr on 21 September, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3916 OF 2008 (Against the Order dated 05/10/2007 in Appeal No. 1066/2007 of the State Commission Gujarat) 1. M/S. KATARIA AUTOMILES Ambica Mils Khokra Bridge Near Anupam Cinema Ahmedabad Gujarat ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRABODHKANT DAMODARAS PANDYA & ANR A-1,Rajdhani Bunglows Ramwadi Bus Station Isanpur Ahmedabad Gujarat ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. K. P. Toms, Advocate Dated : 21 Sep 2021 ORDER Taken up through video conferencing.
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act 1986') in challenge to the Order dated 05.10.2007 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 1066 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 06.11.2006 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad Rural (the 'District Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 463 of 2004.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the District Commission's Order dated 06.11.2006, the State Commission's impugned Order dated 05.10.2007 and the Petition.
3. The disputes relates to recurring problems in a new vehicle purchased by the Complainant (the Respondent herein), the Buyer, from the Opposite Party (the Petitioner herein), the Dealer.
4. The District Commission vide its Order dated 06.11.2006 allowed the complaint on contest and ordered for the Complainant to hand over the subject vehicle to the Dealer and for the Dealer to pay the sale price of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 3,61,125/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.
5. The Dealer appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission made its appraisal and vide its Order of 05.10.2007 dismissed the appeal "for want of prima facie merit".
6. Learned counsel for the Dealer argues that the fora below have used the word 'defect' in their respective Orders. The procedure laid down in Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act 1986 has not been followed. If the vehicle had a 'defect', the Manufacturer should also have been made a necessary party. The letter dated 31.08.2004 written by the Dealer to the Complainant is not an admission of 'defect'.
The submission is that the matter be remanded to the District Commission, for the District Commission to make the Manufacturer a necessary party and return fresh findings re 'defect' after following the procedure laid down in Section 13(1)(c) to (g).
7. We have perused the Order dated 06.11.2006 of the District Commission and the Order dated 05.10.2007 of the State Commission.
A bare reading of the two Orders shows that the word 'defect' has been used by the two fora to connote recurring problems in the new vehicle, which the Dealer could not rectify, which were of such nature and recurrence that they led to the vehicle having to be parked with the Dealer, the Dealer was not able to rectify the problems and return the vehicle in satisfactory roadworthy condition accompanied with the requisite test reports.
The mere factum of the vehicle lying with the Dealer since 2004, the recurring problems in the vehicle not having been rectified by the Dealer and the vehicle not having been returned to the Complainant in satisfactory roadworthy condition are indicative enough of irreparable / unrepaired problems in the vehicle.
In so far as the letter dated 31.08.2004 written by the Dealer to the Complainant is concerned, it inter alia points that the Complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle and requested for the requisite tests to be conducted thereon by the Dealer, self-evidently an indication that the Complainant was not satisfied with the repairs undertaken / the satisfactory roadworthiness of the vehicle. The letter does not indicate 'defect' as may require adherence to the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act 1986. It however decisively points towards recurring irreparable / unrepaired problems as tantamount to manifest lack of satisfactory roadworthiness, the onus of remedying which was on the Dealer (the vehicle being new and under warranty), and which onus the Dealer did not discharge. Overall, this letter does not weigh in favour of the Dealer.
8. In the light of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that determining 'defect' in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) was not required in this case, and, as such, this "omission", as argued by the learned counsel for the Dealer, is not fatal to the case of the Complainant. On the other hand what has been conclusively proved is that recurring problems have not been occurring in the new vehicle, the same have not been rectified by the Dealer, the vehicle is lying with the Dealer since 2004, it has not been returned to the Complainant in satisfactory roadworthiness condition accompanied with the requisite test reports within reasonable period of 2004 (in fact the vehicle is still lying with the Dealer on date (in 2021)).
The Dealer received the sale price. It was responsible for satisfactorily repairing the vehicle. Determining 'defect' in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act 1986 was not required in this case. As such there was no need to implead the Manufacturer as a necessary party before the District Commission. In any case it does not (now) lie in the mouth of the Dealer to raise this preliminary objection at the stage of revision before this Commission.
9. The vehicle was bought in 2003, it is lying with the Dealer since 2004, the District Commission made its award in 2006, the State Commission dismissed the Dealer's appeal in 2007, we are now in 2021.
After about 17 years, it will be a travesty of justice if this Commission orders the case to be remanded to the District Commission to determine 'defect' in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act 1986, and when we find that it is per se not warranted since the whole appraisal and reasoning of the two fora below is towards connoting recurring problems not rectified by the Dealer in respect of a new vehicle under warranty.
The learned counsel appearing for the Dealer could not put forth any other proposition which, on date, as the things obtain, would be just, equitable conscionable and lawful for remedying the wrong to the Complainant.
10. We find no crucial misappraisal of evidence by the two fora below. We find no jurisdictional error, or legal requirement not fulfilled, or miscarriage of justice. The award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the proved facts of the case. Nothing calls for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
Procrastination of the dispute by the Dealer in one, two and now three consumer protection fora is also well manifest.
11. This is a classic case of what not to do.
The Petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of worth, frivolous and vexatious, causing unnecessary wastage of the time and resources of this Commission, continuingly adding to the travail and prejudice to the Complainant, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission within four weeks from today.
The award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, is confirmed.
The amount, if any, deposited with the Registry of this Commission in compliance of this Commission's Order dated 21.10.2008 alongwith interest, if any, accrued thereon shall be immediately remitted by the Registry to the District Commission. The District Commission shall utilize the said amount towards satisfaction of its award as per the due procedure. The balance decretal amount shall be made good by the Dealer through its partners within four weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalties', as per the law.
12. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the Petition as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER