MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

09.07.2024

1.         A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant purchased Activa Honda Scooter bearing Reg. No. DL-8SBK-4845 on 01.01.2014 from OP1 with warranty and assurance that if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle same would be replaced.

2.       It is alleged by the complainant that within 4-5 days of the purchase the vehicle started showing manufacturing defect and on 05.01.2014, the said vehicle stopped in the middle of the highway and the complainant was compelled to tow the vehicle to the authorized centre of OP1. After inspecting the vehicle the engineer of the service centre asked the complainant to handover the vehicle after 2-3 days and finally on 08.01.2014 the workshop handed over the vehicle after carrying on the necessary repairing work with repairing bill of Rs. 3428/- despite the fact that the vehicle is under warranty. The service engineer of the OP after enquiry submits that the vehicle is having certain defective part and the same has been replaced as such the repairing cost goes to the tune of Rs. 3428/-.

3.       It is alleged by the complainant that OP1 is playing calculated fraud with him as by playing fraud the OP1 has generated the repairing bill to the tune of Rs. 3428/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that he suffered mental and physical torture from the calculated fraud of OP1 under the pretext of false and fabricated assurance of good running condition of the vehicle in question. It is further alleged by the complainant that both OP1 & 2 are liable to pay the damages to the complainant on account of not only cheating but for committing criminal breach of trust which is penal offence and both the OPs are liable to be prosecuted u/s 420 of IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that he also served legal notice dated 21.01.2014 to both the OPs but OPs neither reply to the legal notice nor had complied the same. Being aggrieved by the conduct and unfair trade practice adopted by OP1 & 2 complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

4.       Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs. OP1 & 2 filed their joint written statement thereby denying any deficiency in service on their part. It is further stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the complainant some parts of the vehicle got defected which needs to be replaced for smooth running of the vehicle and the same has been replaced as such no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the OP for filing the present complaint  It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. It is further stated that the present complaint be dismissed with cost being not maintainable before this Commission.

5.       Rejoinder to the written statement of OP filed thereby denying the averments made in the written statement.

6.       Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint. He has placed on record the copy of repairing invoice as well as copy of legal notice in support of his contention.

7.       Sh. Parmeet Singh Anand Director of OP1 Co. filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP1 & 2.

8.       Written arguments filed by the parties.

9.       We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for OP1 &2 Sh. D.K. Sinha. Despite opportunity complainant failed to address the arguments. We have perused the record.

10.     The complainant has alleged in the present complaint that the present complaint be allowed against the OP1 & 2 as OP1 & 2 has played the calculated fraud with him by demanding a sum of Rs. 3428/- on account of repairing and replacement of the defective part of the vehicle in question.   The complainant has further alleged in his complaint at para-12 that both OP1 & 2 are liable to pay the damages to the complainant on account of not only cheating but for committing criminal breach of trust which is penal offence and both the OPs are liable to be prosecuted u/s 420 of IPC.  

11.     The present complaint case is purely based on fraud, criminal breach of trust as well as fraudulent activities conducted by the OP1 & 2. The main allegation in the present complaint is of fraud and criminal breach of trust. The law is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respect and the reliance can be  placed on Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another (2000) 1 SCC 66, Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkata and Another Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and others (2020) 9 SCC 424 and The Chairman and Managing Director, city Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Chandramohan in civil appeal no.7289 of 2009 decided on 27.03.2023 (Supreme Court).

12.     The present complaint involves the facts which require adjudication of criminality like fraud and criminal breach of trust which could not be decided by the Commission under the C.P Act 2019. The law is well settled that the proceeding before the commission being summary in nature cannot decide the criminal liabilities and offences such like fraud and criminal breach of trust.

13.     On the basis of above observation and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, accordingly dismissed.

          File be consigned to record room.

14.     Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   09.07.2024.

Sanjay Kumar                                           Nipur Chandna                       

               President                                                         Member