Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 (4) CPR 98
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President; Mrs. Saroj Sharma and Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Members
Mrs. Arvinda Sharma — Appellant
versus
M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
First Appeal No. 48 of 2009
Decided on 14.5.2010

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Special Power of Attorney.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Arjun Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3 ; Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4: Mr. Anup Sharma, ADA.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where complainant fails to adduce evidence to demonstrate that respondent sold the vehicle to him misrepresenting facts and charging excess price thereof, his complaint regarding unfair trade practice would be liable to be dismissed.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) —Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service—Complaint that respondent No. 2 sold 5 seater vehicle misrepresenting facts and charged for 8 seater Omni vehicle and cheated the complainant—No evidence to prove the allegations with regard to cheating, unfair trade practice or manufacturing defect in the vehicle—Order placed for Maruti Omni 8 seater—Sale certificate showing sale of 8 seater vehicle—Delivery receipt also showing delivery of 8 seater—Price also paid for 8 seater vehicle—No expert report filed to prove version of the complainant—Manufacturing defect pertaining to brakes etc. not established—Defect with regard to tyres was removed by replacing the same—Plea that vehicle in question did not conform to specifications prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act/Rules repelled—Complaint rightly dismissed by the District Forum. (Paras 19 to 29)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d) —Consumer—Vehicle purchased by the complainant—Not exclusively commercial but also for own use and for family convenience—Not registered as transport vehicle—Finding of District Forum that complainant is not a Consumer not legally warranted. (Para 29)
       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

ORDER

Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member—This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla passed in Consumer Complaint No.338/2005, dated 3.1.2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by holding that complaint suffers from several legal and factual infirmities, thus not maintainable.

2. Facts of the case are within narrow compass. Appellant purchased Omni 8 seater vehicle vide sale certificate No.22732, dated 4.11.2003 from respondent No.2. As per allegations made in the complaint, case of the appellant was, that the respondent No. 2 had sold 5 seater by misrepresenting the facts and had charged sale consideration for 8 sealer vehicle. Further averments in the complaint are that the vehicle sold suffered from manufacturing defects, which were not been rectified by respondent No.2 despite repeated requests. These defects in the vehicle were in its brake, tyres, seats etc and it was alleged that respondent No.2 had cheated and also overcharged him in making sale of 8 seater Omni which was actually 5 seater.

3. In this background, complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of respondents, wherein compensation amounting to Rs.9,91,910 was claimed as detailed in clause 1 to 4 of para-12. In addition to this, appellant had also prayed in the alternative for replacing the vehicle with new 8 seater, Versa.

4. Respondents in the present case contested and resisted the complaint before the Forum below. Their version in the reply was that the present complaint was not legally maintainable since the appellant was not a “consumer”, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Fora had no jurisdiction to try the same.

5. In addition to this, it was also pleaded that there is no deficiency of service/unfair trade practice of any kind on their part and the vehicle supplied to the appellant was as per booking order placed with the respondents and the vehicle was as per desired specification. Further case of the respondents was, that there was no manufacturing defect of any kind in the vehicle in its seats, brakes, etc. as alleged and the vehicle was supplied in a good condition.

6. It was also pleaded by them that the vehicle in question was Maruti Omni-E 8 seater for which the order was placed and there is no difference in the horse power and other specification in both the vehicles, and Maruti Omni 8 seater had been certified by the authorized agency to be roadworthy as per requirement of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and the Rules framed thereunder. It was also stated in reply by respondent No.1 that the vehicle was sold to the appellant after homologation only and it is as per requirement of Motor Vehicle Act/Rules and it was rightly registered by Registering Authority. Respondent No.3 had taken the plea that the vehicle was purchased from opposite party No.2 from Pathankot and not from it at Shimla and there is no whisper of any negligence/ deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, as alleged in the complaint against it as such the appellant had no cause to maintain the same against it.

7. During hearing of appeal, vide order dated 18.8.2009 Registering and Licensing Authority, Shimla (Rural) was added as a party, as it was felt that it a necessary party for just decision of the case. Thereafter, Registering Authority filed affidavit of Shri Man Singh Verma, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Registering and Licensing Authority along with documents Annexures R4/A to .R4/I, Licensing Authority had clearly mentioned in para-8 of affidavit that the model of Maruti Omni 8 seater (Van) was approved Director of Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla vide its letter No.4-3(31)/87-8 733-96, dated 18.1.1997 Annexure R4/I, as such vehicle No.51A 0518 was registered by Licensing Authority on 3.2.2004.

8. Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in the present case in nutshell is that the appellant in support of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2010 (4) CPR 98H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLAArun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President; Mrs. Saroj Sharma and Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, MembersMrs. Arvinda Sharma — AppellantversusM/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors. — RespondentsFirst Appeal No. 48 of 2009Decided on 14.5.2010

IMPORTANT POINTWhere complainant fails to adduce evidence to demonstrate that respondent sold the vehicle to him misrepresenting facts and charging excess price thereof, his complaint regarding unfair trade practice would be liable to be dismissed.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Where complainant fails to adduce evidence to demonstrate that respondent sold the vehicle to him misrepresenting facts and charging excess price thereof, his complaint regarding unfair trade practice would be liable to be dismissed.