SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(UK) 43

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
B.C. Kandpal and C.C. Pant, JJ.
M/S. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
SH. BHAWESH NARULA – Respondent
First Appeal No. 127/2011
Decided on : 10.03.2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms. Anupama Gautam, Learned Counsel

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 13(1)(c) — Provisions of — Sending the vehicle to appropriate laboratory for analysis — When the appellants had admitted the defect in the vehicle and that the fuel injection system of the vehicle had gone defective — No question of sending the vehicle to any laboratory for examination/analysis — Vehicle was with O.P. No. 3 and it could have got the vehicle examined from an independent mechanic/laboratory in the presence of the complainant, to find out the actual reason behind the problem in the vehicle, but the same was not done in the instant case — No benefit of provision of Sec. 13(1)(c), Act 1986 to the Opposite Party.

        (Para 9)

       (B) Territorial Jurisdiction — O.P. No. 1/manufacturing company had dealers through out the country and party No. 3 was situated at Haldwani, District Nainital — Also, no dispute that the complainant had taken his vehicle to the O.P. No. 3 for repair work and the vehicle was still lying with it — Therefore, part of cause of action in the instant case, had risen in favour of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Nainital — Hence said District Forum had not erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and deciding it on merit by the order impugned. (Para 10)

       (C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Claim for compensation — Manufacturing defect in the vehicle — In the instant case, the problem of pick-up in the vehicle persisted even after repairs of the vehicle — And O.P. No. 3 took more than four months in repairing the vehicle — Thus, in the present case, the facts speak themselves and are sufficient to prove that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle — Also, there was no question of replacement of any part of the vehicle for the reason that even after repeated repairs the vehicle was not free from defect and the defect was still persisting — Hence appellants liable to refund the cost of the vehicle to the respondent as was rightly directed by the District Forum.

        (Para 13)

       (D) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 13 — Provisions — O.P. admitted that defects in vehicle were removed — This showed that there were defects in vehicle — Therefore, provisions of Sec. 13, Act 1986 not applicable. (Para 14)

       (E) Words and Expression — Word ‘compensation’ has wide connotation — According to dictionary it means, ‘compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense’ — In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. (Para 16)

       (F) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Provision — It enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him — The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.

        (Para 16)

        ¼v½ miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 13(1)(c) & izko/kku & okgu dks mfpr ySc esa fo’ys”k.k ds fy, Hkstuk & tc vihykfFkZ;ksa }kjk ;g LohÑr Fkk fd okgu esa [kjkch gS o okgu dk Fuel injection system [kjkc gks x;k gS & rc okgu dks fdlh ySc esa ijh{k.k ;k fo’ys”k.k ds fy, Hkstus dk iz’u ugha mBrk & okgu O.P. la- 3 ds ikl Fkk vkSj mls okgu dk fdlh Lora= eSdsfud }kjk ;k ySc esa ijh{k.k f’kdk;rdrkZ dh mifLFkfr esa djkuk pkfg, Fkk] okgu esa ijs’kkuh dk ;FkkFkZ dkj.k Kkr djus ds fy,] ijUrq ,slk ugha fd;k x;k Fkk & fojks/kh i{k dks /kkjk 13(1)(c), vf/kfu;e] 1986 ds izkoèkkuksa dk ykHkA ¼izLrj 9½

       ¼c½+ {ks=kf/kdkfjrk &
O.P. la- 1@fuekZrk dañ ds ns’kHkj esa Mhyj gSa vkSj i{k la- 3 gY}kuh] uSuhrky esa LFkkfir gS & dksbZ fookn ugha fd f’kdk;rdrkZ viuk okgu O.P. la- 3 ds ikl ejEer ds fy, ys x;k Fkk tks vkt Hkh mlds ikl gS & izLrqr okn esa f’kdk;rdrkZ ds i{k esa okn gsrqd ftyk Qksje] uSuhrky dh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk esa Fkk & bl izdkj ftyk Qksje }kjk miHkksDrk f’kdk;r Lohdkj dj] xq.kk xq.k ij fuf’pr dj vkns’k ikfjr djus esa dksbZ =qfVdkfjr ughaA ¼izLrj 10½

       ¼l½ miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986 & izfrdj nkok & okgu esa fofuekZ.k nks”k & izLrqr okn esa okgu esa
pick up dh ijs’kkuh okgu dh ejEer ds mijkUr Hkh fo|eku Fkh & bl izdkj] izLrqr okn esa rF;ksa ls fl) fd okgu esa vUrfuZfgr fofuekZ.k nks”k Fkk & fdlh Hkkx ds izfrLFkkiu dk Hkh iz’u ugha D;ksafd lrr ejEer ds ckn Hkh okgu nks”k eqDr ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj nks”k fo|eku Fkk & blfy, vihykfFkZ;ksa dk nkf;Ro fd os okgu dk ewY; izfroknh dks okil dj nsa tSlk ftyk Qksje }kjk mfpr ik;k x;k FkkA

        ¼izLrj 13½

       ¼n½ miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 13 & izko/kku & fojks/kh i{k us Lohdkj fd;k fd okgu esa [kjkch dks nwj fd;k x;k Fkk & vr% Li”V fd okgu esa nks”k Fkk & blfy, /kkjk 13] vf/kfu;e 1986 ds izko/kku izk;ksT; ughaA ¼izLrj 14½

       ¼;½ ‘kCn vkSj vfHkO;fDr & ‘kCn ßizfrdjÞ dk foLr`r xq.kkFkZ gS & ‘kCnkoyh ds vuqlkj] bldk vFkZ gS {kfriwfrZ dk {kfriwfjr gksuk( izfrnku esa nh xbZ oLrq & fof/k esa bldk vFkZ gS lrr uqdlku ;k vuqekfur {kfr ftldk foLrkj fd;k tk ldrk gS HkkSfrd] ekufld ;k HkkoksÙkstd ihM+k] vieku ;k {kfr ;k uqdlku esaA ¼izLrj 16½

       ¼j½ miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986 & izko/kku & ;g miHkksDrk dks nkok djus ds fy, l{ke djrk gS o deh’ku dks l’kDr djrk gS fd og miHkksDrk ds lkFk gq, vU;k; dks izfrrks”k djs & vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr deh’ku ;k Qksje gdnkj gS u flQZ lkeku ;k lsok dk ewY; vf/kfu.khZr djus ds fy, vfirq miHkksDrk ds lkFk gq, vU;k; dh {kfriwfr ds fy, HkhA ¼izLrj 16½

       

ORDER

(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 116 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite parties to pay, jointly or severally, to the respondent – complainant the cost of Skoda Fabia 1.4 PDTDI (Classic) Diesel car with accessories amounting to Rs. 6,84,950/-, together with interest @6% p.a. pendente lite and future and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that on the date of compliance of the order, the respondent shall submit the ownership documents of the vehicle/letter of subrogation with the appellants.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 14.10.2009, the complainant had purchased Skoda Fabia 1.4 PDTDI (Classic) Diesel car from the opposite party No. 2 – M/s Oberai Auto Sales, Kuanwala Road, Haridwar Road, Dehradun for sum of Rs. 6,35,950/-. The said car was manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 – M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. It is alleged that on 17.05.2010, when the complainant was in Dehradun, the vehicle had pick-up problem. The said problem was brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 2. The complainant was told that the vehicle requires servicing. The Service Manager of the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that all the filters of the vehicle including the diesel filter need to be replaced. The diesel filter is required to be replaced only after the vehicle had run 30,000 kms. The complainant agreed for change of the filters. The vehicle was repaired by the opposite party No. 2 the same day and was delivered to the complainant on 17.05.2010 itself after repairs. The complainant paid sum of Rs. 7,630/- for the work carried out in the vehicle. The complainant drove the vehicle from Dehradun to Haldwani. However, when the complainant reached Kashipur, the vehicle again started creating same problem. The complainant somehow reached Haldwani and took the vehicle to the opposite party No. 3 – M/s Channel Motors, Haldwani on 28.05.2010. There, the Service Manager of the opposite party No. 3 told the complainant that the filters of the vehicle have not been changed by the opposite party No. 2 and that the repair work will take one day. The complainant left the vehicle with the opposite party No. 3 and came back the next day to take the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant was told that the problem in the vehicle is not detectable. In order to detect the problem/fault in the vehicle, every part of the engine was opened. Inspite of above, the fault in the vehicle could not be detected and after a period of 20 days’, the complainant was told that there is some injector problem in the vehicle and the injector is required to be replaced and the cost thereof has to be borne by the complainant. The complainant asked the opposite party No. 3 that the vehicle is under warranty and, therefore, the injector should be replaced free of cost, but the opposite party No. 3 refused to replace the injector free of cost. The complainant asked the opposite party No. 3 to replace the injector because he was facing difficulty. The complainant was told that the part, which is required to be changed, is not available with it and it is required to be ordered from the opposite party No. 1. On 13.07.2010, the complainant was told by the opposite party No. 3 that the injector has been received and the same has been replaced, but the vehicle was creating the same problem. Then every part of the engine was again opened, but the defect in the vehicle could not be found. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 22.07.2010 for replacing the car in question with a new car, but inspite of service of the notice upon the opposite parties, the needful




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top