STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 371 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 12.11.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 22.01.2013 |
M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.3.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Chetan Gill S/o Rajwant Singh Gill R/o H.No.103, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Respondent/Complainant.
2. TATA Motors Ltd., through its Chairman, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 001.
3. TATA Motors ltd., Passanger Car Unit, 5th Floor, 1 Forbes, 1 Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai – 400 001 through its Deputy General Manager.
….Proforma Respondents.
Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
First Appeal No. | : | 374 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 14.11.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 22.01.2013 |
1. TATA Motors Ltd., through its Chairman, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 001 through its Manager Legal M. K. Bipin S/o Sh. M. P. Hari Das, Regional Office, Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. TATA Motors ltd., Passanger Car Unit, 5th Floor, 1 Forbes, 1 Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai – 400 001 through its Deputy General Manager, through its Manager Legal M. K. Bipin S/o Sh. M. P. Hari Das, Regional Office, Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
…Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Chetan Gill S/o Rajwant Singh Gill R/o H.No.103, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Respondent/Complainant.
2. M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phse-2, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
....Performa Respondent.
Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, bearing No.371 of 2012, filed by Opposite Party No.3, and No.374 of 2012, filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, against the order dated 05.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in Criminal Petition No.103 of 2012, vide which, it directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-
“11.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that OPs have failed or omitted to comply with the order passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T, Chandigarh, therefore, they are liable to be punished under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed. Warrant of arrest are ordered to be issued against the OPs for their presence before this Forum for passing an order on the quantum of sentence for 26.11.2012.”
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.1468 of 2009 before the District Forum, which was accepted, and the following order dated 17.01.11, was passed:-
“9. Therefore, relying on the contents of the report as well as the submissions made by the complainant and the OPs, we are of the opinion that the OPs be directed to rectify all the defects present in the vehicle by repairing/replacing the parts as per the report of the Engineering College within one month of receipt of this order. In case they are unable to rectify the defects as per the report, they may then refund the value of the vehicle paid by the complainant after deducting depreciation @ 10% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of this order. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy failing which they shall pay the awarded amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till the payment is actually made to the complainant.”
3. Against the aforesaid order, the complainant, preferred First Appeal No.42 of 2011, before this Commission, which was partly accepted, vide order dated 30.04.2012, and the order dated 17.01.2011 was modified, whereby the Opposite Parties, were directed as under:-
“12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, and the order passed by the District Forum is modified, in the following manner:-
i) The respondents/Opposite Parties are directed to rectify the defects, in the car/replace the defective parts thereof, as ordered by the District Forum and the complainant shall take the car to the service centre of the respondents/Opposite Parties, within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order for doing the needful.
ii) Failure, on the part of the Opposite Parties/respondents to rectify the defects, to the satisfaction of the complainant, shall make them liable to refund the price of the vehicle.
iii) The respondents/Opposite Parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant/complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment instead of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.
iv) The respondents/Opposite Parties shall also pay to the appellant/complainant a sum Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation instead of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.
v) The direction given by the District Forum for deduction of depreciation value @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase of the car till the impugned order passed by it, being illegal, is set aside.
14. The aforesaid order be complied with by the respondents/opposite parties, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents/Opposite Parties, shall also be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the aforesaid payable amounts, from the date of order of the District Forum i.e. 17.01.2011 till realization, besides litigation costs.”
4. Subsequently, the complainant filed an Execution Application/C.P No.103 of 2012 under Section 27 of the Act, before the District Forum, for getting the order dated 30.04.2012, passed by this Commission, complied with, in entirety, which was allowed by the District Forum, vide the order impugned dated 05.11.2012, in the manner, referred to in the opening para of the instant order.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeals, have been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
7. The Counsel for Opposite Party No.3, - Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. (dealer), submitted that, in compliance with the order dated 30.04.2012, passed by this Commission, the appellants/Opposite Parties have already refunded the amount of Rs.60,000/- vide cheque No.393595 dated 07.06.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited. He further submitted that on receipt of the vehicle, the defects, in the same, were rectified, and to substantiate the compliance, affidavits of Sarvshri Hans Ram Sharma and Amandeep Singh, Engineers of the Opposite Party, were also placed on record. However, the District Forum by ignoring the fact that all the defects were rectified, passed the impugned order, on the sole ground, that the satisfaction note was not given by the complainant, in writing. He further submitted that the non-satisfaction of the complainant, could not be made the basis for arriving at a decision in application u/s 27 of the Act. He further submitted that the District Forum, could have referred the vehicle for inspection to any independent agency to know, as to whether, the defects were rectified or not. However, it lost sight of the fact that the complainant, being an interested party, was not interested in giving satisfaction note in writing. He further submitted that though there was mention of the objections filed by the Opposite Parties, yet the District Forum, did not specifically decide the same, causing manifest injustice to them. He further submitted that the appellants/Opposite Parties, being the permanent establishments, never absconded from the process of the Court and never disobeyed or failed to comply the orders of the State Commission. He further submitted that the order dated 05.11.2012, has resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore, is liable to be set aside.
8. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, also submitted that the defects pointed out, by the expert, as detailed in the judgment of the District Forum, have already been rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and this fact was also brought to the notice of the District Forum. He further submitted that the District Forum did not take into consideration the affidavits (Annexure A-5 & A-6) submitted by the Engineers, wherefrom, it was established that the orders had been substantially complied with. He further submitted that the complainant is intentionally and purposely, not giving the satisfaction note, on the basis of repairs effected by the appellants and is only interested in the refund of the price of the vehicle, in question. Relying on the cases Goltish Scales and Systems Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Gurmukh Singh, 2003 (3) CLT 195 (NC), and Asstt. Commissioner of Police Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District Forum, 2003 (3) CLT 430 (Mah.), he submitted that since serious consequences flow from the order, passed u/s 27 of the Act, affecting the fundamental rights, freedom and liberty of the Citizen, enshrined in the Constitution, the District Forum has to be circumspect and judicious while dealing with the application seeking execution u/s 27 of the Act. He further submitted that the District Forum issued the warrant of arrest, in haste, without following the procedure laid down, by law and, as such, the impugned order, is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant admitted the factum of receiving the amount of Rs.60,000/-, towards compensation plus costs of litigation. He submitted that the defects, stated, in the report dated 27.08.010, as reproduced in Para No.8 of the order dated 17.01.2011, still persisted, in the vehicle and have not been rectified, to the full satisfaction of the complainant. He further submitted that the aforesaid defects, were brought to the notice of the appellants, but no engine repairs or change of defective parts of the engine, clutch etc. was done, as was apparent from the job invoice dated 19.05.2012. He further submitted that the act and conduct of the appellants was just a mere eyewash to delay/abuse the process of law. He further submitted that the appellants completely ignored the claim of the complainant, and, as such, they are liable to refund a sum of Rs.4,80,573/-, alongwith interest @12% per annum from 17.01.2011. He further submitted that the District Forum rightly passed the impugned order, as the appellants totally failed comply with the directions of District Forum, and this Commission and, as such, the appeals filed by them are liable to be dismissed.
10. The question arises, as to whether, the District Forum, adopted the correct procedure, in accordance with law, before passing the order impuged, against the Opposite Parties under section 27 of the Act. It may be stated here, that, originally the complaint was accepted by the District Forum, vide its order dated 17.01.2011, which was subsequently, modified, in appeal, by this Commission, vide order dated 30.04.2012, whereby the Opposite Parties were directed to rectify the defects, in the car/replace the defective parts thereof, as ordered by the District Forum and in case of failure to rectify the same, to the satisfaction of the complainant, to refund the price of the vehicle. They were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. As the Opposite Parties, failed to allegedly comply with the aforesaid order, inspite of sufficient opportunity, the complainant filed an execution application u/s 27 of the Act, wherein, warrants of arrest were issued, for procuring the presence of the Opposite Parties, for 26.11.2012. The summary procedure was only required to be adopted by the District Forum, for deciding the application under Section 27 of the Act. In the execution application under Section 27 of the Act, notice was issued to the Opposite Parties, who appeared and filed reply/objections. There was, thus, due compliance of the principles of natural justice. The District Forum, thus, adopted the correct procedure for deciding the application under Section 27 of the Act.
11. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.60,000/- i.e. (Rs.50,000/- as compensation plus Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses), has already been paid by the complainant vide cheque No.393595 dated 07.06.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited. From the perusal of the affidavits of Sh. Hansraj Sharma and Amandeep Singh, Service Engineers of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, placed, on record, during the pendency of First Appeal No.42 of 2011 (decided on 30.04.2012) as also as Annexures R-1 and R-2 appended to the objections, filed to the application u/s 27 of the Act, before the District Forum, it is revealed that the vehicle of the complainant, was taken to the workshop of the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, where after carrying out the necessary repairs, all the defects were removed, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and he was informed to take delivery of the same on 17.05.012. In these affidavits, the Engineers have clearly testified that all the defects, as pointed by the complainant, were duly rectified. The complainant has failed to place, on record, any document, from which, it could be ascertained, that the defects have not been rectified and certain defects still remained. Moreover, the complainant has not filed any expert opinion or report to refute the depositions made by way of the aforesaid affidavits. Thus, in the absence of any specific defect having been pointed out by the complainant, which remained after repairs, it could not be said that the car was still having some defects. Therefore, we find force, in the contention of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, that the complainant is, intentionally and purposely, not giving the satisfaction note, on the basis of repairs effected by the appellants and is only interested in the refund of the price of the vehicle, in question. The object of the Act, is only to ensure the compliance of the orders, passed by the Consumer Foras. Its object is not to punish a person, who has complied with the order, though belatedly. Since, the entire amount, as ordered by the District Forum, subject to modification, in appeal, by this Commission, has already been paid, to the complainant, and the defects have already been duly rectified, by the appellants/Opposite Parties, qua which the affidavits of the Engineers were filed, in our considered opinion, judged from any angle, it cannot be said that any part of the order still remained to be complied with. Under these circumstances, the execution application/ criminal petition, filed by the complainant/respondent No.1, was nothing, but an abuse of process of law. The order impugned, thus, being illegal and perverse, is liable to be set aside.
12. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing Nos.371/2012 and 374/2012, are accepted, with no order as to costs. The order dated 05.11.2012, impugned, is set aside. Warrants of arrest, if already issued, be recalled back unexecuted, immediately. The District Forum concerned be intimated at once.
13. Certified copy of the order, shall be placed in First Appeal No.374 of 2012.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
22nd January, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.371 of 2012)
Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
Dated the 22nd day of January 2013
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal and First Appeal No.374 of 2012, have been accepted, with no order as to costs.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT |
Ad
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 374 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 14.11.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 22.01.2013 |
- TATA Motors Ltd., through its Chairman, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai – 400 001 through its Manager Legal M. K. Bipin S/o Sh. M. P. Hari Das, Regional Office, Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. TATA Motors ltd., Passanger Car Unit, 5th Floor, 1 Forbes, 1 Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai – 400 001 through its Deputy General Manager, through its Manager Legal M. K. Bipin S/o Sh. M. P. Hari Das, Regional Office, Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
…Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Chetan Gill S/o Rajwant Singh Gill R/o H.No.103, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Respondent/Complainant.
2. M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phse-2, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
....Performa Respondent.
Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No.371 of 2012 titled ‘M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Chetan Gill and another, vide which this appeal has been accepted, with no orders as to costs.
2. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
3. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
22nd January, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
