Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. - Appellant
Versus
GOPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2299 of 2012 and Revision Petition No. 163 of 2013 from Order dated 23.3.2012 in First Appeal No. 348 of 2010 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla with I.A. Nos. 299, 300, 301 of 2013
Decided on : 03-03-2014
Mr. Dilip Poolakkot, Advocate, for the Appellant; For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in RP 2299/13 and Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, Advocate, for the Respondent
The principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies in cases where the thing speaks for itself, and expert evidence may not be necessary.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Purchase of Defective Vehicle - Section 24-A, Section 13(3) - The court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the manufacturer and dealer, holding that the complaint was not barred by time under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also found that the complainant was a consumer and that expert evidence was not necessary as the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur applied. The court dismissed the petitions as frivolous and vexatious, ordering the petitioners to pay costs and comply with the State Commission's order.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a truck/chassis, which experienced engine trouble shortly after purchase. Despite multiple notices and repairs, the issue persisted. The complaint was initially dismissed by the District Forum but was later upheld by the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was not barred by time, the complainant was a consumer, and expert evidence was not necessary due to the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur. The court dismissed the revision petitions as frivolous and vexatious, ordering costs to be paid and compliance with the State Commission's order.
Issues: Barred by time under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Whether the complainant is a consumer; Necessity of expert evidence under Section 13(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The complaint was not barred by time; The complainant was a consumer; Expert evidence was not necessary due to the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, ordered costs to be paid, and directed compliance with the State Commission's order.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member -This order shall decide the above detailed two revision petitions filed by General Manager (Mktg. Dvn), Ashok Leyland Ltd., manufacturer, OP1 and Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Dealer, OP2. I have heard both the Counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appeared on behalf of Gopal Sharma, the complainant, in this case. The complainant was served through registered AD Card. On 7.5.2013, Mr. Subrata Dass, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the complainant. He did not file his Vakalatnama, however, his presence was marked. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Complainant is not interested in pursuing this case.
2. The facts of this care are these. Mr. Gopal Sharma, the complainant, purchased a Truck/Chasis on 20.8.2002 for a sum of Rs. 6,78,916. Thereafter, he got the body of the truck built. The grievance of the complainant is that within a month of purchase of the chasis, the engine of the aforesaid vehicle, started giving trouble. The complainant sent first notice in this regard to Ashok Leyland Ltd., on 9.4.2003. Thecomplainant also gave the first report for failure at odometer reading of 36248kms, on 15.5.2003. The Deputy General Manager (Legal) of Ashok Leyland Ltd., who was arrayed as OP3 vide communication dated 25.11.2004 proved on the record as Annexure-E, stated that the first engine failure was reported only on 15.5.2003, after the vehicle had covered 36248 kms. It was further explained that one piston, two liner rings set and big end bearing had been replaced. Second notice was sent on 2.9.2003 by the complainant. The complainant sent third notice dated 31.1.2004. In his letter, Annexure-E, the Deputy General Manager (Legal) admitted and stated that the vehicle was got checked on 26.4.2004 when third piston exhaust valve was changed without charging any money from the complainant though by that time warranty period was over. The warranty expired on 22.2.2004. On 29.3.2004, the vehicle was attended at Spark Automobiles. On 3.4.2004, the complainant recorded satisfaction and withdrew his notice. On 9.4.2004 and 14.9.2004, two separate notices were sent to the petitioner as reply to Annexure-E.
3. A complaint was filed before the District Forum on 17.1.2009. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 20.8.2010, on merits.
4. However, the State Commission placed reliance on Ex. Annexure-E and directed the OPs to replace the engine of the vehicle with a new one within one month and if, for any reason, it is not possible to replace the engine, to pay money equivalent to the price of the engine, in question, together with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the complaint to the date of realisation. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as damages to the complainant for pecuniary loss and Rs.10,000 on account of litigation expenses. It was further directed that all the 3 OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to satisfy this order.
5. I have heard both the learned Counsel for Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Gautam Automobiles Ltd. The principal argument urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners was that this case is barred by time under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They submitted that the warranty in this case expired on 22.2.2004. This complaint should have been filed till 21.2.2006. However, it was filed on 17.1.2009. There is a huge delay. It was pointed out that no application for condonation of delay was moved before the District Forum.
6. Both the learned Counsel have left no stone unturned in misleading the Commission regarding this point. A doubt cropped up in my mind and this Commission summoned the original file for 26.2.2014. The file of District Forum clearly goes to show that the complainant had filed the first consumer complaint No. 32 of 2005 on 31.1.2005. The following order was passed by the District Forum on 3.1.2009:
"As such, taking into consideration the rival contention and after considering the facts as pleaded in the application, th
