JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      We have perused the report of the Registrar of the State Commission.  It is surprising to note that he has not mentioned about the column ‘when the free copy was supplied’.  Therefore, Registrar of the State Commission is directed to extend his seal and it must include at serial No. 10 i.e. “What is the date of supplying free copy”.  According to his report, free copy was sent through registered post on 28.1.2013.  There is delay of 29 days in filing this revision petition.  For the reasons mentioned in the application, we hereby condone the delay in filing the revision petition.

2.      Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur/complainant purchased a car make Tata Indigo from Dada Motors Limited, Ferozepur/opposite party No. 3 on 15.3.2007 for an amount of Rs.5,38,582/- after taking loan from the Bank of Baroda, Ferozepur.  During the first month of service, she made a complaint that paint of the car was having cracks and the portion of the left side was also not properly finished.  She approached the opposite party but could not get the desired result. 

-3-

Thus, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum against all the opposite parties mentioned above.

3.      The District Forum granted Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and other expenses connected to the repair of the car.

4.      Not satisfied with this order, the complainant approached the State Commission.  The State Commission vide its order enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1 lakh for unfair trade practice as well as compensation for mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant from the hands of the respondents and litigation costs.  It was further ordered that said amount be paid by the petitioners jointly and severally to the complainant within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.

5.      Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party-Tata Motors Ltd. and others have approached this Commission.  Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset, submits that he was satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum and he did not go in appeal.  However, the amount of Rs. 1 lakh is on the higher side and the painting   will    cost    meager   amount.   Learned   counsel  for the

-4-

petitioners submits that no reason was given by the State Commission for the enhancement of the compensation.  He further submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HVPNL vs. Mahavir 2001 (10) SCC 659 has held that “The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submission of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.”

6.      For the following reasons, we clap no value to these arguments.  We have seen the job cards which clearly mention about the same.  Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that first job card, R-3 mentions that “Paint crack from roof and paint not finished on left side”.  There is no endorsement that the car was repainted or the defect was removed.  He has also invited our attention towards job cards, R-4 and R-5 where other defects were mentioned but it does not mention about the paint.  We are of the view that there is not even an iota of evidence that the car was repainted.  If it was repainted, some documents should have been prepared about the same.  Said evidence did not see the light of the day.  We are also of the view that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh is rather on the

-5-

lower side.  It is in respect of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant.

7.      The facts of the case speak for itself.  The paint cracks cropped up even in the very first month.  The said defect could not be rectified till third free service.   It is, therefore, clear that defect continued for at least six months.  Such like defects tarnish the image of a person in the society and provide material for jokes for known persons.  The person involved has to curse his luck and as such undergoes the mental agony and physical harassment.  The wearer knows where the shoe pinches.

10.    The revision petition has no merits and therefore the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- which be deposited with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund towards Uttarakhand Tragedy within one month otherwise it will carry interest @9% p.a. for wasting the precious time of this Commission.