Delhi

StateCommission

A/356/2015

BMW INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANUSHA FINVEST & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 17.05.2016

Date of Decision : 24.05.2016

Appeal No.356/15

 

(Arising out of the order dated 21.04.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.39/11 by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI.)

 

In the matter of:

1. BMW India Private Limited,

DLF Cyber City-Phase II,

Building No. 8, 7^th Floor, Tower-B,

Gurgaon-122002.                                                     …..........Appellant

 

VERSUS

1. Anusha Finvest,

Having its Registered Office at:

1903, Patwaon Ka Rasta,

Chaura Rasta, SMS Highway,

1.  

 

2. Deutsche Motoren Private Ltd.,

H5/B1, Mohan Co-operative,

Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044.                                                             ….....Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 

 

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The counsel for appellant pointed out that after relying upon the decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No.1588/06 titled as M/s. AB Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs. Admiral Impex Private Limited, the District Forum found that once complainant has received part of the claim from insurance company, he could not have filed claim for the balance amount from dealer and accordingly the complaint was dismissed. Still the District Forum went on to observe that BMW car sold in India are suffering from faulty designs and are suffering from imperfection and not suitable for heavy rainy seasons of India and Indian road conditions do not compare favourable with European weather conditions and road conditions, where water logging is absent due to normal and sporadic rains. Counsel for appellant submitted that complainant did not make any grievance about perfection and imperfection, faulty design, suitability of BMW car for heavy rainy seasons and Indian road conditions. So, the appellant did not have any occasion to contest the same. In such circumstances, the adverse remarks should not have been passed. There was no material on record to support the adverse observations.  In support of submissions, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Ambani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa  (1995) Suplementary (4) SCC 169.  Opening para of the said decision reveals that it was appeal by special leave by the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to expunge certain remarks made against him. In para 10 & 11 adverse remarks were found to be unjustified and same were directed to be expunged.  For doing so reliance was placed in previous decision in R.K. Laxmanan Vs. A.K. Srinivasan (1975) 2 SCC 466 and Niranjan Patnaik Sashibhushan Kar (1986) 2 SCC 569. In para 15 it was held that use of intemperate language or making disparaging remarks against any one unless that be the requirement for deciding the case, is inconsistent with judicial behaviour. Written words in judicial orders form permanent record which make it even more necessary to practise self-restraint in exercise of judicial power while making written orders. Reliance was also placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs. Mohammad Naim, AIR (1964 ) 2 SCR 363. In para 11 it was observed that at the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing  their  opinions Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair-play and restraint.  It is not infrequent  that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made.  It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against  persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in case to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct, justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be juridical in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.

 

2. In view of the above discussion, appeal is accepted in part and the observations made in last para of the order are expunged.

 

3. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be also sent to District Forum for information. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

​