Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice (Retd.) G.D. Sharma, President and B.L. Saraf, Member
S. MOHD. SHARIEF NAIK - Appellant
Versus
TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Complaint No. 2667 of 2004
Decided on : 22-12-2010
C.M. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Rajesh Tingloo, Advocate, for the Respondent
The complainant's failure to prove non-registration due to seating capacity, default in loan repayment, and commercial use of the vehicle led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection - Sale of Vehicle - 2002(1) S.L.J M/S Alson Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. J&K Project Constructions Corporation & Ors. - Section 20
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle with a seating capacity of 6 persons, but it was not registered by the RTO, leading to alleged loss and manufacturing defects. The OPs raised objections regarding the complainant's status as a consumer and his default in loan repayment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove the non-registration of the vehicle due to seating capacity and had defaulted in loan repayment. It concluded that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious, imposing a cost on the complainant.
Issues: Non-registration of vehicle, manufacturing defects, complainant's status as a consumer, and loan repayment default.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's failure to prove non-registration due to seating capacity, default in loan repayment, and commercial use of the vehicle led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, and a cost of Rs. 6,000 was imposed on the complainant.
JUDGMENT
Justice (Retd.) G.D. Sharma - The complainant has filed this complaint with allegations that in order to earn his livelihood he booked one motor vehicle of the type of TATA 207 Crew Cab from OP no. 2 who is the authorised dealer of OP no. 1. The former is the manufacturer. On 10.03.2003, he paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac through cheque as part payment for booking TATA 2007 Crew Cab D1 with 407 Engine and sitting capacity with driver plus five (hereinafter referred as the vehicle). That in the "brochure", OPs 1 and 2 had shown that the above said vehicle had seating capacity of driver plus five persons. Vide Sale Certificate (annexure C) dated 28.05.2003 above said vehicle was delivered to the complainant wherein it is also stated that the "seating capacity including driver was 6 numbers". The complainant had no money to pay the remaining price and was intimated by the OPs that he could avail financial assistance from OP 3. The complainant accepted this suggestion and with regard to the payment of the balance of the remaining sale consideration, necessary formalities were observed by drawing documents which were handed over to OP no. 3 and they are still in his possession. After taking the delivery of the vehicle, the complainant approached RTO Jammu for its registration but the same was refused after inspection of the vehicle on the sole ground that seating capacity was incorrect. On 28.05.2003, the complainant got the vehicle insured from the insurer namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by making the payment of the premium installment in the sum of Rs. 10,522/-. The complainant had deposited Rs. 42,751/- with Op no. 3 towards liquidation of the loan by way of agreed installments. The complainant could get his vehicle registered with RTO Jammu on 27.04.2004 with seating capacity of 2 persons including driver. The vehicle was kept in a stationary condition for one year and 10 months after the sale. According to him, he stood cheated by the OPs. It is also alleged that the vehicle was delivered with damaged cabin vide invoice number mentioned in Para 4 of the complaint.
2. The reliefs claimed by him are:-
a. Compensation for loss of business 3 lac.
b. Compensation for mental agony and physical torture 2 lac.
c. Refund of the deposited amount with OP no. 2 in the sum of Rs. 1 lac alongwith interest which had accrued up to Rs. 30,000.
d. Return of the amount of two installments lying with OP no. 3 in the sum of Rs. 42,751
e. Cost of litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 40,000.
In the written version, OPs have raised the preliminary objection that the complainant is plying the vehicle for commercial purposes being a transporter and does not qualify to be a "consumer" as defined in the Act. On facts, it is pleaded that the complainant during the warranty period had brought the vehicle four times to the workshop of OP no. 2. The Job Cards are dated 28.05.2003, 05.07.2003, 22.08.2003 & 11.10.2003 (attached as annexure 'R'). During that period, no manufacturing defect was pointed out. It is admitted that the purchased vehicle has a sitting capacity of six persons including the driver. For the non-registration of the vehicle by the RTO, the ignorance is pleaded. It is specifically pleaded that complainant is a defaulter in liquidating the balance loan to OP no. 3.
In support of the complaint, the complainant himself has appeared as a witness. In his affidavit, he has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has other three vehicles of TATA 207 made and they are being used as load carriers. RTO had not registered the vehicle in question for 6 persons. He admits that the loan facility was up to the limit of 3 lac from OP no. 3 and he has re-paid a sum of Rs. 42,751/- up to September 2003. At the time of purchase of vehicle he has not checked the vehicle because there was no such need. That within one month from the date of the purchase of the vehicle, he informed the OPs about the allege
