STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.

REVISION PETITION NO.19 OF 2009

M/s. Hind Motors (India) Limited, (Tata Motors Passenger Car Dealers), 15, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Appellant.

Versus

1.      Manjit Singh s/o S. Jodh Singh, resident of House No.3016, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh (deceased) through L.R Gurjinder Singh S/o Late Manjit Singh.

…..Respondent.

2.      M/s Northern Financial Services through its Proprietor, SCO No.54, IInd Floor, Sector 20C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh.

…Proforma Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

HON’BLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the revisionist.

                        Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                        Sh. Raksh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.2.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

1.                     This revision petition has been filed by OP No.1 – Hind Motors (India) Limited against order of District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum dated 29.9.2009 and 27.10.2010 passed in Execution Application No.101 of 2009 vide which the objection petition of OP No.1 has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2.                     Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Forum which was allowed vide order dated 13.11.2007 and OP No.1 was directed to immediately release the documents of title to the complainant and pay interest @11% per annum on the total amount of Rs.3,35,421/- w.e.f. the date the amount was received till the documents of the car were released. The learned District Forum also directed OP No.1 to pay Rs.14,260/- towares insurance and Rs.1 Lac as compensation. OPs were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. Besides this, OP No.2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.52,075/- to the complainant and order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order failing which OPs No.1 and 2 were held liable to pay the same along with penal interest @12% per annum on the amount worked out till the date of actual payment.

3.                     Subsequently, OP No.1 – Hind Motors (India) Limited preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, a revision petition was preferred impugning the order of State Commission before the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission while disposing of the revision petition modified the order in view of handing over the title documents of the vehicle to OP No.2 to the effect that both OPs No.1 and 2 were held liable to pay the amount of compensation in equal proportion.

4.                     Subsequent to the passing of order by Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant filed execution application before the learned District Forum wherein OP No.1 filed objections, which were rejected by the learned District Forum with costs of Rs.5,000/- as stated in the earlier part of the order, against which the present revision petition has been filed.

5.                     Respondent (complainant) filed reply wherein he has stated that till date, the documents have not been handed over to the complainant as directed vide order dated 13.11.2007 but OP No.1 chose to hand over the documents to OP No.2 and this fact for the first time was brought in light by the statement suffered by the counsel of OPs before the Hon’ble National Commission on 11.9.2008. It is next stated that OP No.1 cannot escape its liability by just passing the documents to OP No.2 when he had ample of opportunity to hand over the said documents to the complainant after order dated 13.11.2007 was passed by the learned District Forum and till 11.9.2008. It is next stated that the calculations supplied by the complainant have been correctly appreciated and recorded by the learned District Forum in the impugned order and after deducting the amounts deposited with it, State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission, it has rightly directed OP No.1 to pay the balance amount of Rs.80,064/- to the complainant with interest @12% per annum.

6.                     We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have also heard the learned counsel Sh. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the revisionist (OP No.1) and Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1 (complainant) as well as Sh. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 (OP No.2). The petitioner/OP No.1 had mainly raised three objections before the learned District Forum as under: -

(a) Since, Manjit Singh (complainant) had died, therefore, the execution application was not filed by a proper person and the execution filed by the LRs of Manjit Singh was not maintainable.

(b) Since, the documents had already been handed over to OP No.2 by OP No.1, thus, OP No.1 was not liable to pay any interest after 16.1.2009.

(c) The amount of Rs.1 Lac taken by the complainant as compensation to be paid by OP No.1 is not payable by OPs as the operative Para of the order in the complaint dated 13.11.2007 does not include this relief.

7.                     Before parting with the order, we also wish to deal with the objection raised by OP No.1 with regard to locusstandi of the execution applicant to file the execution petition. In this case, it would be suffice to say that as per records, the execution application has been filed by the LRs of the complainant and thus, in our considered view, there is no illegality in the filing of the same as admittedly, the complainant of the complaint case admittedly has died.

8.                     Now before discussing the merits of the case, it is important to reiterate basic facts. These are that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question to be run as a taxi, on the purchase of which, as per the order in vogue at the time of purchase, the rebate of Rs.18,000/- was available to the purchaser. The total cost of the vehicle was to be paid as under: -

- Rs.2,50,000/- by OP No.2 on behalf of the complainant and Rs.86921/- by the complainant himself. The complainant paid this amount of Rs.86,921/- on 27.5.2005. The balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by OP No.2 as under: -

(i)                Rs.2,27,275/- on 19.8.2005;

(ii)             Rs.19,725/- on 29.8.2005;

(iii)           Rs.1,500/- on 26.12.2005;

Thus, OP No.2 paid OP No.1 less amount by Rs.1,500/- due to which OP No.1 withheld the documents of the car and did not give the same to the complainant and because of the non delivery of the documents the complainant could not run the vehicle nor could he get it registered in time to claim the rebate amounting to Rs.18,000/-. Inspite of paying Rs.1,500/- less to OP No.1, OP No.2 further demanded and received a sum of Rs.7,575/- from the complainant vide Annexure C-1. On its part, even OP No.1, who had received only Rs.1,500/-, sought a sum of Rs.14,145/- from the complainant even after having received a total amount of Rs.3,35,421/-. In view of the above payments, the fact was that the complainant could not utilize the vehicle as a taxi for want of car sale documents and therefore, the learned District Forum had allowed the complaint. In the order passed in the complaint case in Para No.16, the learned District Forum had expressed the view that OP No.1 should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lacs as compensation to the complainant for loss of earning yet in the operative para of the order i.e. Para No.17, this relief has not been recorded/granted. The reliefs granted vide Para No.17 of the order are as under: -

Against OP No.1:-

(i)   to handover documents of the title of the car to the complainant immediately;

(ii) pay interest @11% per annum on the total amount of Rs.3,35,421/- retained by it from the dates of receipt of the amount till the receipt of the documents of the car;

(iii)           pay Rs.14,260/- to the complainant as charges for the insurance of the car;

(iv)            pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,500/- as its share of cost of litigation.

Against OP No.2:-

(i)   pay the complainant a total sum of Rs.52,075/- (Rs.18,000 + Rs.25,000 + Rs.1,500 + Rs.7,575);

(ii) pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,500/- as its share of costs of litigation.

The above directions were endorsed by this Commission in appeal. However, the Hon’ble National Commission modified the above directions to the extent that the compensation to be paid by OP No.1 to the complainant was also to be shared in equal terms by OP No.2 since it had retained the documents pertaining to the vehicle given by OP No.1 to it. In view of the above, the total liability of cash payment by OP No.1 towards the complainant is now as follows:-

(i)                pay half the amount of interest @11% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,35,421/- calculated w.e.f. the dates of receipt of the amount till the documents of the vehicle in question are handed over to the complainant. It is so because the directions of learned District Forum to OP No.1 is categoric and clear that it should hand over the documents of the vehicle to the complainant and not to OP No.2.

(ii)             pay Rs.14,260/- as charged for insurance;

(iii)           pay Rs.2,500/- as its share towards cost of litigation.

                        It also needs to be reiterated that the interest on the amount of Rs.3,35,421/- is to be calculated till the date the car documents are handed over to the complainant.

9.                     In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the liability calculated by the learned District Forum at Para No.10 of its order dated 29.9.2009 does not stand legal scrutiny. It is on record that OP No.1 has already paid the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- in addition Rs.35,000/- had been deposited by it with this State Commission under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 at the time of filing the appeal and it is further deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the District Forum on 19.5.2009. Thus, a total sum of Rs.80,000/- has either been paid to the complainant or stand deposited with the respective authorities of Consumer Fora.

10.                   In our view as expressed earlier, in the absence of any executive direction to OP No.1 to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1 Lac as compensation for the loss of earning suffered by it, no liability can be fastened at this stage on OP No.1 as ordered of learned District Forum order dated 13.11.2007 has attained finality and we cannot go behind this decree. Even if it was the intention of learned District Forum to grant some relief in this context to the complainant, the same has not been expressed in the eventual directions passed in the order disposing of the complaint case. Thus, we are of the considered view that the complainant now cannot claim payment of Rs.1 Lac as compensation for the loss of earning in the execution of the decree passed vide District Forum’s order dated 13.11.2007.

11.                   In view of the foregoing discussion, the liability fastened on OP No.1 vide the impugned orders dated 29.9.2009 and 27.10.2009 is set aside and the same is now directed to be recalculated in the terms as under.

(i)    pay half the amount of interest @11% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,35,421/- calculated w.e.f. the dates of receipt of the amount till the documents of the vehicle in question are handed over to the complainant. It is so because the directions of learned District Forum to OP No.1 is categoric and clear that it should hand over the documents of the vehicle to the complainant and not to OP No.2.

(ii) pay Rs.14,260/- as charged for insurance;

(iii)           pay Rs.2,500/- as its share towards cost of litigation.

12.                   The revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

13.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

5^th May 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

REVISION PETITION NO.19 OF 2009

Argued by:            Sh. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the revisionist.

                        Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                        Sh. Raksh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                …..

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this revision petition filed by OP No.1 has been disposed of in terms of Para No.11 of the main order.