Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Mr. Tikka Singh, Member.
SH. J.D. SHARMA––Appellant
versus
1. M/S. MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED
2. M/S. MODERN AUTOMOBILES
3. M/S. MODERN AUTOMOBILES––Respondents
First Appeal No. 8 of 1990—Decided on 13.11.1990
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. J.D. Sharma, In person.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. J.S. Narang, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 2 & No. 3:Mrs. B.M. Sharma, Advocate.
The affixation of an identification plate with a wrong engine number embossed thereon is a defect within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - DEFECT - IDENTIFICATION PLATE - COMPENSATION - Maruti Van purchased by the appellant had an identification plate with a wrong engine number embossed on it. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the affixation of the identification plate was not a mandatory requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act and its Rules and that the identification plate was not an essential functional part of the van. HELD - The definition of 'defect' in the Consumer Protection Act is wide and includes any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of the goods. The affixation of an identification plate with a wrong engine number embossed thereon is a defect within the meaning of the Act. The appellant is entitled to compensation for the loss and injury suffered by him due to the defect in the goods.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a Maruti Van from the respondent. The identification plate affixed inside the van had a wrong engine number embossed on it. The appellant faced difficulties in getting the road tax deposited and in registering the vehicle due to the discrepancy in the engine number. The District Forum dismissed the appellant's complaint holding that the affixation of the identification plate was not a mandatory requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act and its Rules and that the identification plate was not an essential functional part of the van.
Finding of the Court:
The affixation of an identification plate with a wrong engine number embossed thereon is a defect within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant is entitled to compensation for the loss and injury suffered by him due to the defect in the goods.
Issues: Whether the affixation of an identification plate with a wrong engine number embossed thereon is a defect within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'defect' in the Consumer Protection Act is wide and includes any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of the goods. The affixation of an identification plate with a wrong engine number embossed thereon is a claim by the trader that the engine number and the chassis number embossed on the identification plate is identical with the originals. If the factual position is otherwise, then it clearly means a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the standard of the goods and thus comes clearly within the scope of the definition of 'defect'.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside with the direction that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would either jointly or severally pay the aforesaid compensation to the appellant within two months from today, failing which compliance would be enforced by resorting to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act.
S.S. Sandhawalia, President—The true import of the word “defect” as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has indeed come to be the focal question in this appeal.
2. The appellant-Shri J.D Sharma is a senior retired member of the Indian Administrative Service. The gravamen of the case laid by him in his complaint before the District Forum, Ambala (which stands dismissed), and in the present appeal, was that on 31st January, 1989 he had purchased a Maruti Omni Van bearing Chassis No. 793998 and Engine No. 369698, from respondent No. 2, who hold a franchise from M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon- respondent No. 1. Being an old member of the Automobile Association of Upper India, the appellant, in accord with his usual practice, approached them on the 6th April, 1989 for depositing the road tax for the year 1989-90. The vehicle being new. the Secretary of the said Association made the necessary thorough checking of the sale documents as well as the vehicle and discovered that the engine number embossed on the Identification Plate affixed inside the body of the van was 369668. whilst the engine number given in the sale invoice. as already noticed, was 369698. Due to this glaring divergence of the engine number on the sale invoice on the one hand and on the identification plate on the vehicle, the Secretary of the Association told the appellant that this could lead to very serious complications, and the vehicle may well be taken as a stolen one, and, consequently, refused to accept the Road Tax until he got this serious mistake rectified.
3. The appellant then proceeded to bring the glaring discrepancy personally to the notice of respondent No. 2 and through them to respondent No. 1 as well vide communication dated 28th April, 1989 (Annexure C-2), seeking an early necessary rectification of the matter. There was, however, no response from respondent No. 1, even though a messenger was specially sent to them at Gurgaon for eliciting some response. Meanwhile the appellant because of the non-payment of the Road Tax had to make numerous visits to the S.D.M. ‘s office at Kalka, who is the Registering Authority, and it is the case that the S.D.M.’s office also refused to accept the tax until the necessary correction had been made. Finally, on the 15th May, 1990, the appellant took the vehicle to the premises of respondent No. 3 at Chandigarh. It is highlighted that the Engine Block of this vehicle is very inconveniently located under the Driver’s Seat, and only after the same is unscrewed and removed and a couple of hoses underneath are disconnected, can one possibly reach the embossed Engine Number on the block and read it with the help of a torch. After going through this tortuous process, the proprietor of respondent No. 3 checked the number on the Engine Block with the Identification Plate, and thereafter certified vide letter “C-3” that whilst the numbers mentioned on the Engine Block and the Sale Invoice tally, the number embossed on the Identification Plate was wrong and discrepant. By the said document he authorised the appellant to inform the Road Tax Registration Authorities accordingly, apparently in order to enable them to accept the Road Tax which was being refused. Thereafter, the appellant addressed a communication (Annexure C-4) to the Secretary, Automobile Association of Upper India, dated 8th June, 1989, who vouchsafed the correctness of the facts stated therein and thereafter recorded the same thereon. Consequently, the appellant could deposit the Road Tax only after the due date had expired, and that too, before the authorities at Kalka. Later on he had to apply and seek the refund of the tax deposited with the Automobile Association of Upper India (hereinafter referred to as “AAUI”), which was done on the 2nd June, 1989.
4. On the aforesaid facts, the complainant-appellant has alleged that he was made to run from pillar to post because of the patent defect and divergence of the nu
