Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, P.M and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
BINOD KUMAR PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
TATA MOTORS LIMITED AND OTHERS - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3280 of 2013 with IA/2428/2014. (Against the Order dated 22/05/2013 in Appeal No. 191/2008 of the State Commission Bihar).
Decided on : 09-03-2015
Rajeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Vijay Kumar, Advocate With K.S. Kashyap, Advocate and Anubhav Ram, Advocate, for the Respondent
Consumers have rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including entitlement to compensation for mental agony and harassment due to defective goods.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Vehicle Defects - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12(1)(c), Section 14(1)(d)] - The court discussed the complainant's rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically focusing on the provisions related to defective goods and the entitlement to compensation for mental agony and harassment. The court also referenced various judgments to support the complainant's claims and emphasized the need for fair treatment of consumers in cases of defective products.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle under a loan agreement but faced persistent defects and repossession due to non-payment. The complainant sought various reliefs including replacement of the vehicle, compensation for expenses and mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the complainant, emphasizing the defective nature of the vehicle, lack of proper repossession procedures, and the complainant's entitlement to compensation.
Issues: Persistent defects in the vehicle, repossession, and compensation for expenses and mental agony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment due to the defective vehicle, and emphasized the need for fair treatment of consumers in such cases.
Final Decision: The court directed the opposite parties to pay a specified sum to the complainant within a set period, highlighting the complainant's entitlement to compensation for the defective vehicle and related expenses.
ORDER
J.M. Malik, (P.M) - Sh. Binod Kumar Pandey, the complainant, purchased a Tata 207 DI Vehicle under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, executed on 21.03.2004. The total price of the vehicle was Rs. 3,65,970/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,17,786/- and the rest of the amount was taken as loan from Tata Motors Ltd., OP. The said amount was to be repaid in monthly instalments @ Rs. 10,300/-. Till the filing of the complaint, the complainant had paid instalments amounting to Rs. 1,74,694/-.
2. The complaint was filed on two counts. Firstly, various problems in the car cropped up, from time to time. The petitioner/complainant got repaired the same under the warranty period. Despite warranty period, the OP used to charge various amounts, total being Rs. 23,000/- for repairing and complainant had to spend Rs. 20,000/- for travel, etc. This is an admitted case that the OP replaced the cracked chasis with a new one and also changed the liner pistol pump and different crown. This is also an indisputable fact that the complainant had to visit the service station for about 8 times, between 07.09.2004 to 08.11.2006.
3. The second count on which this complaint was filed is that due to persistent defects, the complainant could not make the payment and the vehicle was repossessed by the Financier, on 22.04.2006. The complainant had used the vehicle for a period of 2 years 5 months'.
4. Under these circumstances, the complainant had filed the present complaint with the following reliefs :-
"(a) Respondent be directed to replace the defective vehicle sold to the complainant with errorless vehicle within a fixed period or the amount deposited by the complainant and the cost paid for the repair of the vehicle and the travel expenses for this purpose in time to time amounting to Rs. 43,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of vehicle be directed to be paid, within a limit period.
(b) Respondent be also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the commercial compensation as mentioned in above para 16 of the complaint along with interest.
(c) Respondent be also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for physical and mental pain and agony.
(d) Litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- be also awarded from the respondents.
(e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper may also be awarded from the respondent".
5. The OP contested this case. The District Forum vide its order dated 20.02.2008, gave the following directions :-
"Accordingly, we direct the opposite parties to pay the initial amount of Rs. 1,17,786/- deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties and Rs. 1,74,694/- paid in instalment as well as Rs. 43,000/- spent on the repair of the vehicle to the opposite parties with 10% interest from the date of repossession of the vehicle till payment to the complainant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. They are also directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant, within the same period of two months".
6. Appeal was filed by Tata Motors Ltd. The State Commission passed the following order :-
"It appears to be a dispute in respect of rendition of account, which cannot be decided in the Consumer Fora. So, we are not inclined to affirm the order passed by the learned District Forum specially, when earlier two complaints filed by the complainant - respondent before the District Forum, Madhubani stood dismissed with a direction to knock the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances. That appropriate Forum should have been a proper court, not Consumer Forum at Patna".
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that this is the third complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant. He contended that this case is barred by res judicata and barred by limitation.
8. We are of considered view that these arguments carry no conviction. The earlier two complaints were filed before the District F
