Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       This petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 15.04.2021 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in Appeal No. 235 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 11.03.2019 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib in Complaint No. 59 of 2017.

2.       Heard the learned counsel at admission. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 11.03.2019, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 15.04.2021 and the petition.

3.       The dispute principally relates to undue wear & tear and damage to the tyres of a new vehicle, manufactured by the opposite party no. 3 manufacturer (the petitioner no. 1 herein), bought by the complainant (the respondent no. 1 herein) from the opposite party no. 1 dealer (the petitioner no. 2 herein).

[The opposite party no. 2 (the respondent no. 2 herein) was a functionary of the dealer.]

4.       The District Commission decided the case on contest, and ordered the manufacturer and the dealer to remove the problems in the vehicle which were causing undue wear & tear and damage to its tyres, replace the tyres with new ones on the complainant paying 25% of the cost (considering that the vehicle had by then run about 37000 km) and pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for the loss and injury caused and Rs. 15 thousand as cost of litigation to the complainant.

The manufacturer and the dealer appealed before the State Commission, for setting aside the Order of the District Commission. The complainant also appealed, for enhancement in compensation. The State Commission re-appraised the evidence, concurred with the District Commission, and dismissed both appeals.

As such this petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below.

5.       A perusal of the State Commission’s Order of 15.04.2021 shows that it is a well-appraised order that has extensively dealt with the issues germane to the dispute. For reasons recorded it has upheld that the complainant was a ‘consumer’ in accordance with the Explanation to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (which was in force at the relevant time). It has noted that the vehicle was inspected in an independent workshop in the presence of both sides and a local commissioner. And it has concurred with the District Commission that the vehicle’s wheel alignment was faulty, there were problems with the axle and gasket, undue wear & tear and damage was caused to the tyres.  

6.       One argument advanced by the learned counsel, that the procedure contained in Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act 1986 was not followed to determine ‘defect’, is not tenable. The problem in wheel alignment, the problem with the axle and gasket, undue wear & tear and damage to the tyres, was inter alia determined in an independent workshop in an inspection conducted in the presence of both sides and a local commissioner. This did not require or dictate adopting the procedure of referring the vehicle to “appropriate laboratory” under Section 13(1)(c), which requires that “where the complainant alleges the defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods” an authenticated sealed sample of the goods shall be referred to “the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test”. Problem in wheel alignment, problem in the axle and gasket, undue wear & tear and damage to the tyres, which have inter alia been determined in an independent workshop in an inspection conducted in the presence of both sides and a local commissioner, do not occasion reference to “appropriate laboratory” under Section 13(1)(c).

Another argument, that the tyres, “JK tyres”, were manufactured by some other manufacturer, the manufacturer of the tyres should have been made a necessary party, is also not tenable. The contract / arrangement for tyres was between the manufacturer of the vehicle / its dealer and the manufacturer of the tyres, the complainant had nothing to do with it, the complainant paid the consideration in full to the dealer alone. And it goes without saying that if the manufacture of the vehicle / its dealer so wish, they can re-visit their contract / arrangement with the manufacturer of the tyres and / or seek appropriate remedy against the said manufacturer as per the law.

7.       There appears no palpable crucial misappreciation of evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require fresh de novo re-appreciation in revision. The award made by the District Commission appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. There appears no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

8.       The petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of worth, frivolous and vexatious, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10 thousand to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission within four weeks. The award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, is confirmed. The petitioners, i.e. the manufacturer and the dealer, shall satisfy the award forthwith, and in all contingencies within four weeks, failing which the District Commission shall immediately undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalties’, as per the law.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.