Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 1098
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana ® President, Vijay Pal Khachi Member, Meena Verma, Member
Yogeshwar - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Saluja Motors Private Ltd. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 251 of 2016
Decided On : 13-01-2017
Ex-parte, for the Co-Respondent No. 1; Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, for the Co-Respondent No. 2
The judgment emphasizes the prohibition of unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act and the precedence of special laws over general laws.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Misleading Advertisement - Section 15, Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Summary: The court found that the dealer had engaged in unfair trade practices by advertising misleading mileage of a vehicle. The court ordered the dealer to pay compensation and litigation costs to the complainant and to discontinue the unfair trade practice. The court also highlighted the special provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the precedence of special laws over general laws.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car based on a misleading advertisement regarding its mileage. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dealer engaged in unfair trade practices by advertising misleading mileage, and ordered compensation and litigation costs to be paid to the complainant. The appeal against the manufacturer was dismissed.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the appeal, determination of unfair trade practices, and the liability of the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on evidence presented, including affidavits and a local commissioner's report, to determine the misleading nature of the advertisement and the dealer's engagement in unfair trade practices.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, with the court ordering compensation and litigation costs to be paid by the dealer, and dismissing the appeal against the manufacturer.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 20.06.2016 passed by learned District Forum Kullu in Consumer Complaint No. 65/2013 title Yogeshwar v. M/s. Saluja Motors Private Limited and others.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant namely Yogeshwar filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that he purchased Ford Fista car 1.6 BSIV Duratec EXI Diamond from corespondent No.1 who is dealer of co-respondent No.2 on 05.08.2011 vide invoice No. VSLAB00193LS after reading misleading advertisement in newspaper Amar Ujala annexure X placed on record. It is further pleaded in the complaint that co-respondent No.1 mentioned mileage of vehicle as 21.27 kilometres per litre. It is further pleaded that delivery of car was given by sale agent at Kullu. It is pleaded that complainant paid Rs. 5,80,000/- (five lac eighty thousand) as consideration amount of sale to co-respondent No.1. It is further pleaded that complainant plied the car with his driver Ashok Kumar son of Shri Pune Ram. It is further pleaded that average mileage of vehicle came ten kilometre per litre contrary to advertisement annexure -X placed on record. It is further pleaded that complainant served legal notice upon co-respondent No.1 dealer and co-respondent No.2, manufacturer of vehicle. Following relief sought from District Forum(1) Loss of Rs. Sixty thousand (2) replacement of vehicle (3) Payment of Rs. 580000/- (Five lac eighty thousand) with interest or to repair the vehicle.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of corespondent No.1 pleaded therein that complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed as learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It is further pleaded that cause of action did not accrue to the complainant within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Kullu. It is further pleaded that complainant is residing in hilly terrain and road conditions are also zig-zag. It is further pleaded that mileage of vehicle depends upon various factors such as road condition road terrain, driving conditions, quality of fuel, proper servicing and maintenance of vehicle & driving skill etc. It is further pleaded that complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that co-respondent No.1 is only a dealer and vehicle was manufactured by Ford India Limited. It is further pleaded that co-respondent No.1 did not advertise any advertisement relating to mileage. It is further pleaded that proper service of vehicle was given to complainant. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of co-respondent No.2 pleaded therein that present complaint is based on conjectures and surmises. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of co-respondent No.2. It is further pleaded that mileage of vehicle depends upon various factors such as road condition fuel conditions & driving patters. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
5. Learned District Forum Kullu Himachal Pradesh dismissed the complaint filed by complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum Kullu appellant filed present appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
6. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.2 and we have also perused the entire records carefully.
7. Following points arises for determination:
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final Order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Complainant namely Yogeshwer adduced evidence by way of affidavit as per section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is recital in affidavit that complainant purchased Ford Fista car from co-respondent No.1 who is dea
