KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL Nos. 278/2024 and 276/2024

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 05.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 573/2016of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPEAL No. 278/2024

APPELLANT:

George Varghese, S/o Marachery Varkey Varghese, Chelattu House, Garden Villas, Mount Carmel Convent Road, Thaikkattukara, Thaikkattukara P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam-683 106.

          (Party in person)    

RESPONDENTS:

1. M/s Honda Cars India Limited, represented by its President and CEO, Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201 306.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

2. M/s Peninsular Honda, represented by its Managing Director, Patel Cars Private Limited, NH 47, Bypass Road, Maradu, Kochi-682 304.

                     (By Adv. Jolly John)

APPEAL No. 276/2024

APPELLANT:

M/s Honda Cars India Limited, represented by its President and CEO, Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201 306.

(By Advs. Juridica Solutio Law Associates & Adv. Narayan R.)   

RESPONDENTS:

1. George Varghese, S/o Marachery Varkey Varghese, Chelattu House, Garden Villas, Mount Carmel Convent Road, Thaikkattukara, Thaikkattukara P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam-683 106.                       

(Party in person)

2. M/s Peninsular Honda, represented by its Managing Director, Patel Cars Private Limited, NH 47, Bypass Road, Maradu, Kochi-682 304.

(By Adv. Jolly John)

COMMON JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant in Appeal No. 278/2024 is the complainant and the appellant in Appeal No. 276/2024 is the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No.573/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short “the District Commission”). 

2.  The complainant purchased a Honda City car from the 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  The car was found to have some defects.  Therefore, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

3.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared before the District Commission.  The 2^nd opposite party alone filed version. The complainant tendered oral as well as documentary evidence. The 2^nd opposite party adduced only documentary evidence.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) to the complainant for the deficiencies, defects and drawbacks proved by the complainant.  The District Commission further directed the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as costs.  Aggrieved by the above direction, the 1^st opposite party has filed Appeal No. 276/2024.  Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum of award, the complainant has filed Appeal No. 278/2024.

4.  Heard the appellant in Appeal No. 278/2024 and also the learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 276/2024.  We have also heard the 2^nd respondent in both the appeals.  We have also perused the records.

5.  When these appeals have been taken up for hearing, both sides have submitted that even though 26 documents were marked for the complainant, only six documents were referred to in the order of the District Commission.  The commission report filed by the expert, after inspecting the vehicle, was also produced and marked.  However, the entire documents were not considered by the District Commission before passing the order impugned. 

6.  We have gone through the proceedings of the District Commission as well as the order impugned.  It appears from the proceedings that as per order dated 12.10.2021, twenty six documents were marked for the complainant as Exhibits A1 to A26.  Exhibit C1 commission report was also marked on 12.10.2021.  As per the proceedings dated 04.04.2023, Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked for the 2^nd opposite party.  Of the said documents, Exhibit B2 was marked subject to proof. 

7.  The order impugned would show that the District Commission had referred to and considered only Exhibits A1 to A6 and B1 to B6.  It appears from the order impugned that the commission report was not marked as the same was objected to by the 2^nd opposite party.  However, proceedings dated 12.10.2021 would show that Exhibit C1 was marked on that date without any objection from the 2^nd opposite party.  Since the District Commission failed to appreciate the evidence on the basis of the entire documents produced and marked, including Exhibit C1 commission report, the learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 276/2024 has requested for remitting the matter to the District Commission with a direction to the District Commission to pass order afresh, considering the entire materials on record. 

8.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, including the proceedings of the District Commission and the order impugned, we are of the view that the District Commission ought to have referred to and considered Exhibits A1 to A26, Exhibits B1 to B6 and Exhibit C1 before passing the order impugned.  Since the order was passed by the District Commission without referring to or considering the entire documents produced, including Exhibit C1 commission report, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Commission cannot be proper and correct and consequently, it cannot be sustained.  In the said circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the said order and remit the matter to the District Commission with a direction to the District Commission to pass order afresh in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment.  We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. 

In the result, these appeals stand allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Commission with a direction to pass order afresh in C.C. No. 573/2016 in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment.  This being a matter of the year 2016, the District Commission is directed to dispose of C.C. No. 573/2016 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellant in Appeal No. 276/2024 shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb