Haryana

StateCommission

A/1623/2017

M/S PIAGGIO MOTORS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHIM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1623 of 2017

 

Date of Institution:29.12.2017

Date of final hearing:20.10.2023

Date of pronouncement:26.10.2023

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., G.T. (Madanpur Road), Karnal, through its authorized person/Director/Chairman.

…Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      Bhim Singh son of Shri Rattan Singh, R/o House No.186, Ward No.4-5, Bhatia Hospital, Gharaunda, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal (Haryana).

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate

 

2.      M/s Navtek Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. (Madanpur Road), Karnal, through its authorized person/Director/Chairman.

….Respondent No.2

Through counsel Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate

 

3.      M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., a non banking finance company, Regd. Office at D-3, P#B Centre, Saket, Delhi through its authorized person.

….Respondent No.3.

Through counsel Mr. Vineet Mittal, Advocate

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Vivek Sethi, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Bhupender Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Mr. S.R. Bansal, counsel for respondent No.2.

                   Mr. Vineet Mittal, counsel for respondent No.3.

 

 

First Appeal No.27 of 2018

 

Date of institution:27.12.2017

Date of final hearing:20.10.2023

Date of pronouncement:26.10.2023

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

M/s Navtek Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. (Madanpur Road), Karnal, through its Authorized person/Director/Chairman.

…..Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate

 

Versus

1.      Bhim Singh son of Shri Rattan Singh, R/o House No.186, Ward No.4-5, Bhatia Hospital, Gharaunda, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal (Haryana).

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate

 

2.      M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., G.T. (Madanpur Road), Karnal, through its authorized person/Director/Chairman.

…Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate

 

3.      M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., a non banking finance company, Regd. Office at D-3, P#B Centre, Saket, Delhi through its authorized person.

….Respondent No.3.

Through counsel Mr. Vineet Mittal, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. S.R. Bansal, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Bhupender Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Vivek Sethi, counsel for respondent No.2.

                   Mr. Vineet Mittal, counsel for respondent No.3.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

          Delay of 02 days in filing of First Appeal No.1623 of 2017 is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay.

2.               Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing F.A No.1623 of 2017 and F.A. No.27 of 2018 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (now ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Shri Bhim Singh) was allowed and the opposite parties (‘Ops’) were directed as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussions, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs No.1 and 2 to give a new truck of the same make and same model as purchased by the complainant free of costs as the previous vehicle is already with the OP No.1. We further direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay to the complainant the interest on the loan amount of the complainant regarding above vehicle from the date of advancement of the loan to complainant upto the date when the new vehicle will be delivered to complainant. We further direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.5500/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. However, it is made clear hereby that the amount of loan after deducting the principal amount and the interest thereon after the date of delivery of new vehicle will be paid by complainant. This order shall be complied with within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance”

3.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant purchased a vehicle Piggio GR/APE Truck from OP No.1 by paying part payment of Rs.70,000/- and remaining payment was financed by OP No.3. It was alleged that complainant spent huge amount of Rs.45000/- on the body of vehicle, RC fitness certificate, insurance and other documents. It was further alleged that after few days the vehicle stopped to work properly due to mechanical defect and he had taken the said vehicle to OP No.1 and the same was kept by OP No.1 on 31.3.2012 by saying that there was mechanical fault and the same would be removed, but the vehicle did not work properly and then on 25.4.2012 OP No.1 kept the vehicle and again it did not work properly. It was further alleged that in the month of May, 2012 the OP No.1 put ring in the vehicle, then in the month of June, 2012 again changed the ring and slive but the said vehicle did not work properly. It was further alleged that in the month of July, 2012 OP No.1 repaired the vehicle full engine, but the fault was not removed. Then, he requested the OP No.1 in the month of August, 23012 to change the vehicle, but OP No.1 did not bother. Thereafter, OP no.1 demanded Rs.16000/-and gave assurance for change of the engine. He paid Rs.16,000/- and Rs.4200/- for battery to the OP no.1, but the problems of the vehicle did not get solved. In the month of February, 2013 he approached the OPs to change the vehicle, but to no effect. In the month of June, 2013 OP No.1 changed clutch plate, pressure plate and wheel joint and received Rs.10225/- from him, but the vehicle did not work properly besides this OP no.1 received Rs.18000/- as insurance charges. Then he again narrated the problems of the vehicle to the OP No.1, OP no.1 kept the vehicle and issued a job sheet dated 25.9.2013 by saying that there was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and sent to OP no.2 but since then vehicle in question was in the custody of OP no.1 whereas he also paid Rs.1,10,669/- to OP no.1. In this way he spent total amount of RS.2,74,094/- on the vehicle. OP No.1 also changed the reading of vehicle himself while he has not ply the same on the road due to manufacturing defect. Then, he served a legal notice dated 5.10.2013 upon the OPs in that regard, but all in vain. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                Upon notice, Ops have appeared before learned District Commission and submitted their separate written versions.

5.                OP No.1 in its written statement submitted that complainant approached the agency of OP No.1 for purchase of Piggio GR/Ape truck plus alongwith the down payment of Rs.70,000/- It was further submitted that the vehicle in question have some mechanical problem and complainant approached to OP No.1 for repair of his vehicle and the fault was removed by OP No.1 free of costs. OP No.1 had not received even a single penny for removing the fault of the vehicle of the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant issued a satisfaction voucher in favour of OP No.1 and it was denied that Rs.18000/-were charged from complainant as insurance charges. The complainant left the vehicle with OP No.1 on 25.9.2013, vide job card no.331 in the workshop of OP no.1 without paying any amount and later on not got back his vehicle and also not given any reason for not getting the vehicle. It was further submitted that there was huge amount of bills pending towards the complainant for repairing of his vehicle. A number of times the complainant visited the OP No.1 and every time OP No.1 repaired the vehicle of complainant free of costs. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                OP No.2 in its written statement submitted that there was no liability being a commercial vehicle and there was no manufacturing defect and also the complaint has been filed due to his carelessness and negligence and for no proper usage of the commercial vehicle. Although the engine was delivered free of cost on 2.11.2012. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                OP No.3 in its written statement submitted that the relationship between the complainant and the OP No.3 is pursuant to the contract entered into between the parties. The complainant has nowhere contended or averred that the OP has in any manner breached or violated any of the previous provisions and conditions of the contract. The vehicle financed to the complainant was commercial vehicle and is being used for commercial purpose. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 2^nd (supra).

9.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, Appellant-OP No.2 (M/s Piaggio Vehilces Pvt. Ltd.) has preferred First Appeal No.1623 of 2017 and appellant-OP No.1 (M/s Navtek Motors Pvt. Ltd.) has preferred the First Appeal No.27 of 2018 for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 10.                Arguments have been advanced in F.A. No.1623 of 2017 by Mr. Vivek Sethi, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Bhupender Singh, counsel for respondent No.1., Mr. S.R. Bansal, counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Vineet Mittal, counsel for respondent No.3. Similarly, the arguments have been advanced in F.A. No.27 of 2018 by Mr.S.R. Bansal, counsel for appellant, Mr. Bhupinder Singh, counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Vivek Sethi, counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Vineet Mittal, counsel for respondent No.3. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

11.                 As per the basic averments raised in both the appeals including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and consequently, whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation on that account or not? 

12.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant (Bhim Singh) has purchased Piggio GR/APE Truck from OP No.1 (Navtek Motors Pvt. Ltd.), manufactured by OP No.2 (M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.) and financed by OP No.3 (M/s Religare Finvest Ltd.). It is also an admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.70,000/- cash as down payment and remaining amount was financed by OP No.3. It is also an admitted fact that after few days of its purchase, the vehicle stopped to work properly due to mechanical defect and the complainant took the vehicle to OP No.1 on 23.3.2012 and the same was kept by OP No.1 by saying that there is mechanical defect and this fact is also admitted by the OP No.1. The said vehicle was taken to OP No.1 by the complainant on 25.4.2012 and even thereafter in May 2012, June 2012, July 2012, August 2012, September 2012, December 2012 etc. During these visits the OP No.2 has charged each time from the complainant for the said vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that on 25.9.2013 the said vehicle was kept by the OP No.1, vide job card No.331 dated 25.9.2013. According to complainant, said vehicle was having manufacturing defect and was to be sent to OP No.2 whereas according to OP No.1, the complainant did not come to take the same.

13.                It is also an admitted fact by OP No.1 (M/s Navtek Motors Pvt. Ltd.) that there was mechanical defect in the said vehicle. No doubt as per OP No.1 said defect was removed but as stated above, said defect was not removed by OP No.1. According to OP No.1 the mechanical defect was removed at the first visit whereas the engine was changed after many visits. So, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved, but learned District Commission has fell into error while passing the impugned order by awarding on higher side. In considered view of this Commission, learned District Commission wrongly awarded the compensation as interest on the loan amount of the complainant regarding above vehicle from the date of advancement of the loan upto the date when the new vehicle will be delivered to the complainant. Further, the District Commission wrongly awarded that the amount of loan after deducting the principal amount and the interest thereon after the date of delivery of new vehicle will be paid by complainant, which is not a speaking order, is devoid of any reasoning and is cryptic and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

14.                Hence, the First Appeal No.1623 of 2017 filed by the OP No.2 (M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.) and F.A. No.27 of 2018 filed by OP No.1 (M/s Navtek Motors Pvt. Ltd.) are partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned District Commission to decide it afresh on merits after hearing both the parties.

15.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the First Appeal No.1623 of 2017 and Rs.2,750/- deposited at the time of filing of First Appeal No.27 of 2018 be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification, as per rules.

16.                 The original judgement be kept with appeal No.1623 of 2017 and its certified copies be placed with appeal No.27 of 2018.

17.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

18.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

19.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 26^th October, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III