Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1586/2018

DIPAK BHATTACHARYYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MAYANK SAPRA

20 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 20.12.2018

Date of Decision : 11.01.2019

COMPLAINT NO.1586/2018

In the matter of:

 

Dipak Bhattacharyya,

•  

P-122 C.R. Park,

New Delhi-110065.                                              ………Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its President and Managing Director,

3.  

Surinder Jakha Bhawan,

IFFCO Com plex Tower-B,

Sector-32, Gurgaon-122002.          ……..Opposite Party No.1

 

2. M/s/ Go Auto Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Authorised Representative,

A-231, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,

New Delhi-110020.                                    ……..Opposite Party No.2

 

3. M/s. Insta Car,

Through its Authorised Representative,

D-11, Pkt-D, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.           ………Opposite Party No.3

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. 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

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The present complaint at the stage of admission is being disposed of by this order. According to complainant OP-1 designs, develops and manufactures automobiles in India, OP-2 is involved in manufacture of parts and accessories for motor vehicles and their engines brakes, gear boxes, axels, road wheels, suspension shock absorbers, radiators, silencers, exhaust pipes, steering  wheels, steering columns and steering boxes and other parts and accessories etc. OP-3 is authorised service centre of OP-1. The complainant bought car no.DL3CAE0738  make Chevrolet Optra Magnum in the year 2004 and had been running the same since that time. The car was in very good condition till time it was given to OP-2 for its service, after the car started malfunctioning. OP-2 changed alternator A 12V 85A and raised proforma invoice dated 23.05.17 for Rs.30,686/-. He went to collect the car from the workshop of OP-2 and observed that car was heating up usually. The service engineer of OP-2 said  that the radiator of the car was faulty and was required to be replaced. Complainant was given to understand that the radiator would come from Pune which would take 15-20 days. Car could not be kept in he workshop of OP-2. He wrote letter dated 23.05.17 to OP-2 asking him to inform when the radiator would be made available. No communication had been received till the filing of the present complaint on 12.12.18.
2. Car having been found to be not working properly, was once again sent to OP-2. OP-2 charged Rs.30,620/- vide invoice dated 30.05.17 mentioning that radiator thermostat and Fr. Right hand side power window switch were not repaired. Still the car was not functioning properly. Complainant wrote letter dated 30.11.17 requesting him to investigate and ensure supply to make good the deficiencies. The complainant sent the car to Op-3 as he was not satisfied with the service of OP-2. While handing over the car to OP-3 on 12.11.17 he mentioned that there was oil leakage in the car and he was experiencing some difficulty with the steering wheel of the car.
3. Complainant received letter dated 15.12.17 from M/s. Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd. in response to his letter dated 30.11.17. The said firm relieved itself of all the responsibilities and put the entire onus on M/s. Insta Car, Okhla/ OP-3. On 18.12.17 he was shocked to know that the car was left stranded on the road by one Mr. Naseem, Mobile no.7290060342/ an employee of OP-3 without any intimation to the complainant. The car was found near the residence of the complainant, while his associate had gone out for getting certain documents photocopied. Upon inspection it was found that car was not functional and towed back to the residence of the complainant. Complainant wrote letter dated 18.12.17 to OP-1 apprising it of the  gross deficiency in service by OP-3. He wrote a complaint dated 18.12.18 to SHO, P.S., C.R. Park and on 08.01.18 to Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs. The department wrote letter dated 05.02.18 to OP-1 requesting it to depute Senior Officer of the Company to look into the matter. There was no response. Complainant was constrained to send another representation dated 19.03.18. Department once again sent letter dated 20.03.18.
4. The complainant had suffered loss of Rs.27,06,306/- details of which are given in para-13 of the complaint. The same includes loss of Rs.5 lakhs allegedly suffered  by complainant on account of his not being able to reach the court on time to attend his matter, Rs.5 lakhs on account of loss suffered to his reputation for not being able to attend his matters before the court, Rs.15 lakhs for mental torture and harassment. Hence this complaint for directing OP to pay Rs.27,06,306/-/-
5. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments for the purpose of admission. The car is of the year 2004, it has almost completed its life of 15 years prescribed by NGT. Now to claim Rs.27 lakhs is surprising. Claim of Rs.15 lakhs on account of mental torture and harassment is nothing but sweet dreams of the complainant. Rs.5 lakhs on account of being not able to reach the court in time is a mere wish. There is no dearth of the vehicle. Complainant could have hired any taxi or cab and reach the court in time. Claim of Rs.5 lakhs on account of loss of reputation for not being able to attend the cases in time is highly exaggerated. All this seems to have been done to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
6. Time and again it has been held that the court can check the exaggerated value, otherwise the very scheme of the Act prescribing  different limits for pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission, State Commission and District Forum would be defeated. In this regard reference with advantage can be made to decision of National Commission in CC No.135/11 titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. Goel Eye decided on 30.03.12, CC No.196/12 titled as Kuamri Femmy vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) and others decided on 13.12.12. In CC No.50612 titled as Vikas Singh vs. BMW India Pvt. Ltd decided on 25.08.15 National Commission took the similar view.
7. In Smt. Nandita Boss vs. Ratan Lal Nahata (1987) c SCC 705 it was held that plaintiff  can not either grossly over valuate nor under valuate. In Abdul Hamim Shami vs. Andul Majeed (1988) 2 SCC 575 it was held that plaintiff can not act arbitrarily. If it is whimsical or ridiculous figure it amounts to not exercising right.
8.  In Sudha Jain vs. PNB II (2007) CPJ 149 National Commission upheld the order to directing return of the complainant for being filed before District Forum. In Captain G.N. Venkatesh Raja Ram vs. American Airlines  I (2018) CPJ 510 National Commission held that exaggerated value can be checked.
9. In CC no.60/11 titled as Sujata Nath vs. Popular Nursing Home decided on 08.07.11 National Commission took the above view. The said order was confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.8642/11 vide order dated 14.10.11.
10. As an up shot of the above discussion the complaint is directed to be returned for being filed in District Forum, after making the claim reasonable.
11. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
12. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                                                              (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)