Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/198/2018

Smt. Uma Singhvi W/o Shri Shyam Singh Singhvi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. And Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Mudit Singhvi

03 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 198 /2018

 

Smt.Uma Singhvi w/o Shyam Singh Singhvi r/o Plot No. G 12 Janpath Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Plot No. 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Near Ambience Marg, New Delhi & ors.

 

Date of Order 3.10.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr.Vineet Mehta counsel for the complainant

Mr.P.D.Luthra counsel for the non-applicant no.1 & 2

Mr.Rajendra Tiwari counsel for non-applicant no.3

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This complaint is filed on 21.12.2018 with the contention that the complainant purchased Maruti Celerio vehicle from the non-applicants. On 18.5.2018 when she was travelling in the said car and driving herself met with accident but air bags have not inflated. They opened and burst. The complainant suffered burning, sensation on skin, chest and neck, defective vehicle is handed over to her and she asked for refund of the sale amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,75,920/- and compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs.

 

The non-applicant has submitted an application stating therein that it does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission as the exeggerated amount of compensation is being asked.

 

A written reply to the application was filed by the complainant stating therein that mental agony, physical discomfort has no co-relation with the consideration prayed the goods and services. She suffered burn marks on her chin and also suffered severe injuries and compensation has rightly been claimed. After proper adjudication only the complaint should be disposed of.

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

The contention of the complainant is that she met with an accident. Anx. 4 is the prescription dated 19.5.2018. Vide Anx. 7 on 21.5.2018 she advised restricted activities for two to three weeks and advise review after 10-15 days or earlier if necessary but no review document is submitted. Anx. 8 says that she suffered no fracture and recommendation was made for dental and dermatologist but no such opinion is submitted meaning thereby that she remained under treatment for only few days and not suffered any grevious injury. In the complaint compensation is asked for mental trauma and physical injury, pain in spinal region, burns in chin and neck area. Heavy pecuniary loss in diagnosis and treatment and total Rs. 50 lakhs were asked.

 

The complainant has relied upon III (2017) CPJ 125 Avinath Kankani Vs. New Kenilworth Hotel wherein six complainants have asked the compensation for mental agony, torture, under mining prestige and dignity. First complainant has asked for amount of Rs. 24 lakhs and other complainants

4

 

no. 2 to 6 has asked compensation each for Rs. 5 lakhs and taking note of the break up, set out in the complaint the court was of the view that matter should be adjudicated but here in the present case nothing has been specifically pleaded as regard to quantum of compensation and at the most the complainant has suffered some discomfort for only few days and non-applicant has rightly relied upon IV (2014) CPJ 331 (NC) Harekrishna Biswas Vs. HD Nautiyal and 1 (2016) CPJ 692 (NC) Vikas Singh Vs. BMW India Pvt.Ltd. where also a highly disproportionate and exaggerated relief was asked by the complainant just to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission and reliance could be placed on IV (2014) CPJ 111 (NC) Sushil Gupta Vs. Master Vintage International where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“Thus, in our considered view, the Consumer Fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with mala fide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/- approximately as compensation to bring this case with

5

 

the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is mala fide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction.”

 

 

In view of the above the application is allowed, complaint is not maintainable as it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and it is returned to the complainant to submit it before the District Consumer Forum after appropriate amendments if any.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm