Haryana

StateCommission

CC/176/2016

VIKRAM YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ JAIN

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.176 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 05.07.2016

Date of Decision: 03.08.2016

 

Vikram Yadava S/o Ugrasen Yadava, r/o H.No.3774-75, Sector 23, Gurgaon, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Mahindra and Mahindra Limited address Automotive Sector, Mahindra towers-3^rd Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400101 through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorised Representative.

          Second Address: Apollo Bunder,Gateway Building, Mumbai-400001.

2.      Sterling Motor Co. address Ground floor, Solitaire Plaza, near corporation bank, Sohna Road, Badshapur, Gurgaon through its proprietor/partner/Managing Director/Manager/Authorized representative.

          Second Address: Near Guru Dronacharya Metro Station, M.G. Road,Sikenderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sumit Jain, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased Mahindra Raxton Rx-6 from opposite party (O.P.) No.2 which was manufactured by O.P.No.1. The sale representative of O.P.No.2 explained all the safety features, price guarantees and  warranties at the time of purchase.  On 14.09.2014 this vehicle met with an accident and he suffered so many injuries for which he received treatment for more than three months.  After huge impact/accident air bags of the vehicle did not open and that is why he received the injuries.  The matter was brought to the notice of representative of O.P.No.1 and he told that there was some manufacturing defect and expert from Korea were required.  So he be granted Rs.50/- lacs as of compensation for the loss and damage on account of  fear, psychological trauma, physical pain, harassment, suffering  physical and mental agony besides litigation expenses.

2.      Arguments at the time of the admission are heard.

3.      The complainant has miserably failed to show how he has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.50/- lacs.  Just on the basis of fear, psychological trauma, physical pain, harassment, suffering family and mental agony,  he is claiming this much amount. He has no-where requested to pay compensation for the loss of the vehicle and to what extent there was loss qua this aspect.  Amount of compensation qua mental harassment etc. is highly exaggerated.

4.      It is opined in so many cases that if the compensation is highly inflated to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of concerned For a then the complainant can be asked to assess the same properly.  Reference to this effect can be made to the opinion expressed by Hon’ble National Commission in Kumari Femy and others Vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) and others, 1 (2013) CPJ 34 (NC), Ratna Ghosh and another Vs. Dr.P.K.Agarwal and others, II (2010) CPJ 204 (NC), Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home and others, III (2011) CPJ 239 (NC) and in Complaint no.383 of 2013 titled as Indrani Chatterjee and another Vs. Amri Hospitals alongwith fifteen other complaints, vide common order dated November 7^th, 2014.

5.      On a careful analysis of the principles stated in the above cases and having perused the case file, this Commission is of the view that the claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated.  The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing this complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  The instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.  Similar view was also expressed by this Commission in complaint No.125 of 2015 titled as Charan Dass Vs Medanta, The Medicity and others decided on 04.08.2015.

6.      Taking into consideration every aspect, it is clear that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the complaint is hereby dismissed.  He may amend his relief suitably  and file complaint.

7.      Complainant may be given the benefit of the time consumed before this Commission for the computation of period for limitation in subsequent proceedings, if any, as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

 

August 3rd, 2016                Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                                Addl.Bench             

S.K.