Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED - APPELLANT
VERSUS
ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8072-8073 OF 2009
Decided on : 09-10-2014
(b) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Punitive damages – For approaching Supreme Court – Not permissible unless the case is frivolous. (Para 17)
(c) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12 r/w section 2(1)(r) – Punitive damages – “Unfair trade practice” – Mere proof of “unfair trade practice” is not enough unless causing of loss is also established – In absence of suffering any loss, award of punitive damages not justified. (Para 19)
(2009) 12 SCC 369; (2003) 1 SCC 129; (2008) 4 SCC 504 – Relied upon
(d) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12 – Punitive damages awarded by National Commission – No pleading or averment by complainant about suffering of punitive damages – National Commission, only concerned with correctness of order of State Commission and had no occasion to award punitive damages – Award not sustainable. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The main question raised in these appeals is whether in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages was permissible.
The complainant who had purchased a Chevrolet car found that it was not SUV but a passenger car and not all-condition car as advertised. He sought permission to remove the alleged “unfair trade practice” and deficiencies in service and also to refund a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs the price of the vehicle and Rs.1,91,295/-the price of accessories with 18% interest from the date of purchase till the date of payment and also to pay compensation for physical and mental pain shock, suffering, agonies, hardships, inconvenience and expenses suffered by the complainant, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-or as thought fit in the interest of justice and the costs.
The District Forum directed refund of Rs.14 Lakhs plus Rs.1,91,295/-towards cost of accessories with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint to the date of payment subject to the return of the vehicle, apart from compensation of Rs.5,000/-for mental agony and Rs.2,000/-as costs of litigation.
The State Commission held that the vehicle had no mechanical or manufacturing defect but the advertisement that car was SUV amounted to “unfair trade practice”. The complainant was held entitled to Rs.50,000/-as compensation which included costs of litigation. But at the same time, the complainant was required to pay Rs.5,000/-towards costs for undeserving claim. The appellant was directed not to describe the vehicle in question as SUV in any form of advertisement, website, literature etc. and to make the correction that it is a passenger car as mentioned in the manual.
The respondent preferred a revision petition against the Order of the State Commission while the appellant filed a cross revision petition.
The National Commission restored the relief given by the District Forum with slight modification.
The National Commission also proceeded to consider the issue of punitive damages for “unfair trade practice” in selling the said vehicles to about 260 consumers. It was held that though the consumers had not approached the National Commission and a period of four years had passed, the appellant should pay punitive damages of Rs.25 lakhs and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs be paid to the complainant while the rest be deposited in the “Consumer Welfare Fund” of the Central Government to be utilized for the benefit and protection of the interests of the consumers generally.
Finding of the Court:
Award of punitive damages cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 16th December, 2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the National Commission”) in Revision Petition Nos.3349 of 2006 and 2858 of 2008.
2. The main question raised in these appeals is whether in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages was permissible. Apart from the said main question, the appellant has also called in question the refund ordered and other relief granted in favour of the respondent-complainant.
3. In the complaint, filed before the District Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural) (for short “the District Forum”), the prayer of the respondent-complainant was as follows :
“The complainant, therefore, most respectfully prays :
(a) That this Hon’ble Forum be pleased to hold that the opposite parties (joint and severally) to have practiced unfair trade practice, towards the complainant and direct them (jointly and severally) to remove unfair trade practice, practiced by them against the complainant;
(b) This Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the opposite parties (jointly and severally) to remove the deficiencies in their services and negligence towards the complainant.
(c) This Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the opposite parties (jointly and severally) to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakh) and Rs.1,91,295/-to the complainant along with the 18% interest, from the date of payment to the complainant and the Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the opposite parties to forthwith to take back the said vehicle from the complainant, after refunding the complainant’s money with interest, as prayed;
(d) This Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the opposite parties (jointly and severally) to pay compensation for physical and mental pain, shock, suffering, agonies, hardships, inconveniences and expenses suffered by the complainant, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) or as thought fit in the interest of justice, by this Hon’ble Forum;
(e) The Hon’ble Forum be pleased to direct the opposite parties (jointly and serverally) to pay Rs.25,000/-to the complainant, as cost of this complaint.”
4. The case of the complainant is that he had passion for driving and dream to visit Leh Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir and Nepal by driving a motor car. By surfing the internet, he read advertisement given by the appellant as follows :
“Introducing a world without borders, an SUV to end all SUVs. That’s the new Chevrolet Forester. With the Power of 120 horses under its borne unique All-Wheels (AWD), it literally puts the four corners of the earth within your easy reach. It won’t just get you there. But get you there. But get you there in unmatched comfort and luxury by-road, off-road or no-road.”
5. Relying upon the same, he visited the agents of the appellant and was given a book titled “for a special journey called life”. He was assured that the vehicle offered for sale will realise his dream. The brochure also assured that “the vehicle in question is an SUV to end all SUVs. And …………… it will put the four corners of the earth within your each and ……….. it won’t just get you their every time. But get you’re there in unmatched comfort, by road, off-road or no road”. He was also shown visual presentation of the vehicle and was also given a copy of the VCD. Accordingly, he purchased the vehicle on 1st May, 2004 for Rs.14 Lakhs and got accessories worth Rs.1,91,295/-fitted and also got the vehicle insured and registered.
6. Thereafter he realised that the vehicle was not fit for “off road, no road and dirt road” driving as represented and had defects. Accordingly, he approached the appellant and its dealers who referred to the owner’s manual at pages 8-6 column 1 & 3 printed by the Company to the effect :
“off-road driving ………… But please keep in mind that AWD Chevrolet is a passenger car and is neither a convention
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
