ORDER (ORAL) These Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) have been filed by the Dealer and Manufacturer of Ecomet 1112/3, viz. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. are directed against a common order dated 31.12.2012, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.16 and 101 of 2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (for short “the District Forum”) vide its order dated 13.12.2011 in Complaint Case No. 44 of 2008 to the effect that there was manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle and resultantly, it could not be plied on the road by the Complainant, has enhanced the compensation from ₹10,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum, to ₹1,00,000/-. 2. For the sake of ready reference, the reasons which weighed with the State Commission for enhancing the compensation are extracted below: “13. As regards the appeal filed by the complainant, opposite party No.1 was supposed to have carried out the repair/replacement of the engine, without demanding any money, on account of the repair charges or the cost of engine, as the engine had seized within the warranty period. This act of the opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service. Because of this illegal demand of opposite party No.1, which the complainant did not meet, vehicle has remained stationary for more than five years and the complainant has been deprived of earning his livelihood by plying the same. Vehicle has purchased by raising loan from a bank. Complainant himself is a minor. The vehicle was purchased for the employment of his father, who is his guardian and next friend. Looking to these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the quantum of compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the learned District Forum is grossly on the lower side. We feel that at least a sum of Rs. One Lac, should be paid to the complainant, by way of compensation, for deficiency in service.” 3. The main thrust of the arguments by learned counsel appearing for the Dealer, in R.P. No.1789 of 2013, is that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and another Vs. N. Siva Kumar and another, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654, the Dealer cannot be fastened with the liability towards compensation for a manufacturing defect in the vehicle as the Dealer does not have the expertise to ascertain as to whether the vehicle actually suffers from a manufacturing defect. Its role is confined to attend the complaint(s), as may be point out by the owner of the vehicle. 4. In our view, on facts at hand, the submission is without any substance. On a pointed query by us as to whether the alleged problem in the vehicle, which admittedly remained in the possession of the Dealer for more than five years, was brought to the notice of the Manufacturer, learned Counsel appearing for the Dealer candidly admits that no such information is available on the record. That being so, the very fact that the Dealer kept the vehicle with it for over five years without bringing to the notice of the Manufacture the nature of trouble in the vehicle and in the process depriving the Complainant to ply it on road for the purpose he had purchased it is per se deficiency in service on its part. Thus the afore-stated, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is of no avail to the Dealer. 5. As regards Revision Petitions filed by the Manufacturer (i.e. RP Nos.1884 and 1885 of 2013), are concerned, the main ground of challenge is that the Complainant had failed to adduce any evidence in support of his allegation that seizure of the engine of the vehicle in question was on account of any manufacturing defect. 6. Bearing in mind the fact that both the Fora below have returned a concurrent finding that seizure of the engine of the vehicle was on account of manufacturing defect and bearing in mind the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the Complainant, i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/-, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our limited revisional jurisdiction. 7. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs. |
