Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 573
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. VISWANATH, PRESIDING MEMBER, RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, MEMBER
KARTAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
M/S. GROVER MOTORS PVT. LTD. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 576 OF 2021|APPEAL NO. 216/2019
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Not represented
A purchaser will not be considered a consumer if the claim arises from commercial activities, and the assessment of defects must rely on expert evidence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in service - Complaint partly allowed by District Forum directing opposite parties to remove defects in vehicle and awarding compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. Appeal dismissed affirming findings of District Forum. (Paras 2, 8)
(B) Role of evidence - Expert report claimed no manufacturing defect; reliance on service record for abnormal wear and tear valid. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner purchased a commercial vehicle, claimed defects of chassis and tyres led to business loss. Respondents contended no defects present and attributed tyre wear to user negligence. (Paras 3-6)
Findings of Court:
No manufacturing defects found; compliance with service obligations was essential; petitioner cannot unjustly benefit from his own demands. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: Validity of defects claims and responsibilities of the petitioner in maintaining vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized reliance on expert evidence and the importance of user compliance with service standards.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. order and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of defect and dissatisfaction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. defenses articulated against claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. findings of the district forum and its evidentiary basis. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's ruling based on consideration of claims and evidence. (Para 8) |
| 6. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 9) |
1. Heard Mr. Kartar Singh, In person, the petitioner.
2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh, dated 15.04.2021, passed in Appeal No. 216 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, dated 11.03.2019, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2017), whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to remove the defects in the vehicle, particularly to change the required parts and tyres of the vehicle, charging 25% of the cost of the tyres from the petitioner and to pay Rs.200000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.15000/- as cost of the litigation and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
3. Kartar Singh (the petitioner) filed Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2017, for directing the respondents to pay Rs. 8 lakhs as the damages for the loss suffered by him and the damages at the rate of Rs.10000/- per day, from the date of filing of the complaint till handing over the possession of the vehicle after removal of the defects in it and exchange of new tyres; in alternative the opposite parties be directed to change the chassis of the vehicle with new one and pay all the expenses to make the vehicles road-worthy.
4. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was running transport business at Mandi Gobindgarh and plying vehicles from mandi Gobindgarh to other destinations as private carrier, for his own employment to serve his family and earn livelihood. Kulwinder Singh (opposite party-2) was working as an agent for M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashok Leyland (opposite parties-1 and 3) for promoting sale of their vehicle. M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1) was an authorised dealer of M/s. Ashok Leyland (opposite party-3), who was a manufacturer and supplier of Ashok Leyland, commercial vehicle. The complainant purchased a Ashok Leyland, commercial vehicle of 12 tyres, having class HGB, Chassis No. MBIKACFDIHPGX 1855, Engine No.HGPZ104162, 180 HP, having 6 cylinders, unload weight 7300 Kgs, Registration No. PB-23 T-4211 on 03.02.2017 from M/s. Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1), for Rs.2090700/-. Opposite Party-1 assured that the vehicle was free from any fault/defect and J.K. Tyres were equipped in the vehicle, which had guaranteed running capacity of 150000 K.M. without any torn or five years warrantee, whichever was earlier. Opposite party-1 supplied a book-let of the vehicle, which was in English language. The complainant was not acquainted with English language, however technician of opposite party-3 was present there, who satisfied the complainant regarding specifications, durability, mileage, warrantee and other conditions of the vehicle. The complainant took finance for purchasing the vehicle from Fulltron India Credit Company Ltd., for which he was paying EMI of Rs.50000/- per month. After incurring Rs.380000/- in construction of wooden body, the complainant started plying it on road from 11.03.2017. After sometime, the complainant realised that the tyres were diminishing and actually diminished its full capacity while running 37000 KM. The vehicle was not giving mileage as per specification as assured at the time of purchase. The complainant brought the vehicle to workshop of opposite party-1 at Ludhiana on 29.08.2017 and asked him to replace the tyres and chassis with new one as per guarantee but they were not giving any heed to his request and the vehicle was standing at their workshop. Market price of two set of JK tyres was Rs.42000/. Due to defect in chassis, the complainant
