BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA NO.397 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.134 OF 2013
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY
Between:
The Authorized Dealer,
Saboo Auto Zone,
A Unit of RKS Motors Pvt., Ltd.,
Authorized Dealer: Ashok Leyland
Light Vehicles, rep. By its Manager,
Plot No.2-4-1/A, near Uppal Bus stand,
Warangal Highway, Uppal,
Ranga Reddy district – 500 039.
…Appellant/Opposite party No.2
And
1) S.Jagan Reddy S/o S.Pratap Reddy,
Occ: Business, R/o H.No.9-2-106,
K.Kunta, Champapet, Saroornagar,
Ranga Reddy district.
…Respondent/Complainant
2) M/s Ashok Leyland
LCV Marketing Officer,
III Floor, Block-1, Temple Steps,
No.184, 187, Annasalai,
Little Mount, Chennai – 600 015.
(R2 is not necessary party)
...Respondent/Opposite party No.1.
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.Gouri Sankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P.Vittal-for R1
CORAM :
Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal … President
and
Sri K.Ramesh … Member
Thursday, the Thirteenth day of December
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order :
***
Opposite party No.2 in CC No.134/2013 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy filed this appeal aggrieved by the orders dated 13.12.2013 in allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite parties to replace the vehicle with new DOST LS BS-III having power steering and further directing to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant as compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as costs granting time of one month.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that for his day-to-day needs, he purchased DOST LS BS-III (goods CH.LB.FBC.PS) vehicle by paying the consideration of Rs.4,37,500/- on 04.09.2012 with the financial assistance from Reliance Capital Limited and subsequently got the vehicle registered with registration mark AP29TB5990. After putting the vehicle to use, he observed some problem with steering which he complained to the Opposite parties, who in turn informed that it is not a power steering. Having collected extra amount for providing power steering, they assured to provide the LS vehicle. The Opposite party No.2 delivered LE vehicle by pasting LS sticker on the vehicle and thereby played fraud upon him. On account of providing wrong vehicle, the Complainant sustained neck problem and problem in limbs for which he took treatment at KIMS.
4) Opposite party resisted the claim contending that on receipt of medical reimbursement claim on 20.06.2007, it was placed for scrutiny before the Committee which rejected on 24.08.2007 on the ground that the disease treated does not fall under the terms of G.O.Ms.No.117 and that the same facilities are available in the State Insurance Institute, which was communicated to the Complainant on 13.09.2007. Again the complainant resubmitted the claim which was considered on humanitarian grounds by relaxing the conditions and accordingly proceedings were issued on 26.05.2010, in pursuance of which the amount of Rs.18,712/- was released after imposing 20% cut on the total expenditure as per rules. Hence, there is no delay in settling the claim and the question of deficiency of service does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their rival claims, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A73. On behalf of Opposite party one K.Malleswar Rao, their Director filed his affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.B1 to B5.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.13/2011, by orders dated 18.07.2014, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
7) It is this order which is assailed by the Appellant in this appeal contending that the forum below failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion. It also failed to consider the abnormal and inordinate delay in pursuing the claim with the Government. The forum below failed to consider the documents brought on record which would show that the claims in the previous past were honoured in entirety without any deduction. The forum below failed to consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective as to the laches on the part of the Respondent. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders impugned.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
9) The District Forum directed the Appellant/Opposite party No.2 to replace the vehicle which was delivered by mistake and further directed the Appellant/ Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st Respondent herein towards compensation.
10) During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Opposite party submitted that during the pendency of the matter before the District Forum, the vehicle in question had been ready and put to use by the first respondent. As a matter of fact, it has travelled a distance of more than 300000 kms which is actually the life span of the vehicle and now claims that the vehicle was wrongly delivered to the Respondent No.1 and therefore, the direction of the Forum below to replace the old vehicle with a new one is unsustainable for the simple reason that the old vehicle which is now not even in a road worthy condition. Therefore, the said direction cannot be sustained in view of the fact that already the Respondent has purportedly used the old vehicle for more than five years and it was on road. In view of the above matter, we find it difficult to sustain the first direction of the District Forum which has called upon the Appellant/Opposite party No.2 to replace the old vehicle with a new vehicle.
11) However, since the Appellant/Opposite party No.2 has wrongly delivered the vehicle to the Respondent/Complainant and it is the deficiency which resulted in such an act, the Forum has awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- which we feel it to be justifiable and sustainable.
12) In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed and the orders of the District Forum dated 13.12.2013 passed in CC No.134/2013 is set aside and the Appellant/Opposite party No.2 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- as ordered by the forum below to the Respondent No.1/Complainant herein within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from this day till the amount is actually paid. The further direction of the District Forum to pay the sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the Respondent is sustained.
13) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part accordingly but in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 13.12.2018
