SHRI BEDRAM filed a consumer case on 09 Oct 2020 against M/S LAXIS ECOFUELS C/O R.P.SINGH in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/214/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Oct 2020.
Delhi
North East
CC/214/2016
SHRI BEDRAM - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S LAXIS ECOFUELS C/O R.P.SINGH - Opp.Party(s)
09 Oct 2020
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST
Brief facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant had a vehicle (car) bearing registration no. DL3CCK7914 which was a used car and in which the complainant wanted to get CNG kit installed. He was introduced to OP which claimed itself to be the best sales and service provider of CNG kit for four wheeler having authorized distributorship license of Landi Renso & BRC CNG kit and OP assured the complainant to get the CNG kit installed in his car hassle free and also to get the RC endorsement to this effect. The complainant, believing the representation made by OP, made an advance token payment of Rs. 1,500/- to OP on 18.02.2016 vide bill no. 774 and purchase the CNG kit from the complainant on further payment of Rs. 35,000/- made to OP on 21.02.2016 vide invoice no. 436. However, when after one month the complainant inquired from OP about the CNG endorsement on RC and other related papers OP started ignoring the complainant and also his telephone calls compelling the complainant to get a legal notice dated 25.04.2016 issued through his counsel upon OP demanding refund and damages. However, when no response came forth from OP on the legal notice, complainant as last resort filed the present complaint against OP alleging deficiency of service for non-provision of the requisite papers and CNG endorsement and prayed for issuance of direction against OP to refund Rs. 37,000/- towards CNG kit and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and loss of esteem and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Complainant has attached copy of the challan invoice no. 436 dated 21.02.2016 for a sum of Rs. 35,500/-, copy of challan invoice no. 774 dated 18.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (both amounts paid by complainant to OP), copy of legal notice dated 25.04.2016 by complainant’s counsel to OP alongwith postal receipt.
Notice was issued to the OP on 01.09.2016. OP entered appearance through its proprietor and filed its written statement vide which, while admitting the factum of fitment of CNG kit in the vehicle of the complainant on 21.02.2016 against challan no. 436, OP took the preliminary objection that out of the total fitment charges of CNG kit to the tune of Rs. 35,500/-, the complainant deposited Rs. 32,000/- as advance on the said date and Rs. 3,500/- was the balance outstanding to be paid by the complainant to OP against the said kit. OP further submitted vide said challan, complainant was required to submit certain documents with OP as mentioned / required on the said challan for preparation of the documentation file and endorsement in the RC of the complainant’s vehicle but because the complainant failed to submit the above mentioned requisite documents with OP, the file of the said work could not be prepared and could not therefore be submitted before the concerned transport department. OP further stated that as per challan no. 774 dated 18.04.2016, an extra part namely CKP Advancer was also fitted in the complainant’s vehicle and the said part cost Rs. 1,500/- which was paid by the complainant. OP urged that during this period the fitment of the CNG kit in ‘in-use’ was banned by the Delhi Government vide notification no. DC/OPS/CNG/2016/COMPLAINT/1729-38 dated 20.06.2016 issued by Deputy Commissioner (Operation) Transport department GNCTD with copies to all MLOs and Deputy Commissioner of Transport Department which order prohibited all MLOs from endorsing any CNG fuel in such vehicle in the vehicle RC till further order. OP submitted that due to the said notification, it could not get the CNG kit endorsement in the RC of the complainant. OP denied having received any legal notice as alleged to have been sent by complainant and stated that it is ready to endorse the CNG kit in the RC of the complainant on submission of the requisite documents and asked for in the challan no. 436 dated 21.02.2016 and as and when the ban issued vide order dated 20.06.2016 by Delhi Government is lifted for fitment of CNG kits in used cars. For the defence so taken OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP has attached copy of the order dated 20.06.2016 issued by Transport Department GNCTD prohibiting endorsement of CNG fuel in RC in ‘in-use’ vehicles.
Rejoinder in rebuttal to defense taken by OP was filed by the complainant vide which complainant urged that since no specific rebuttal to his allegation of having CNG kit installed only on OP’s assurance of endorsement in RC was made by OP, the same amounts to admission that the fitment of CNG kit was unapproved and OP was careless by not submitting the documents with RTO within time when all the requisite documents as asked for by OP were handed over by the complainant to OP in February 2016 itself and the ban came in June 2016 i.e. after four months of submission of documents in which intervening period, OP was careless, negligent and deliberate to not pursue the matter before the RTO for which act of OP, the complainant is facing a lot of problems as he is unable to ply the vehicle for wrongly fitted CNG in it and therefore had to issue a legal notice to the OP which went un-responded too. Therefore, complainant urged for the relied claimed against OP for having committed in deficiency in service and indulge in unfair trade practice.
Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both parties exhibiting the documents relied upon. The complainant exhibited the original challan / invoice dated 21.02.2016 and 18.04.216 and OP exhibited copy of the transport department order as DW 1/1.
Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion / reiteration of their respective grievance / defence.
We have heard the rival contention of both parties through video conferencing and have given our anxious consideration to the documents placed on record having keenly perused them. It is an admitted fact that a CNG kit was installed by OP in the vehicle of the complainant on 21.02.2016 vide challan no. 436. On perusal of the two challans placed on record by the complainant and also admitted by OP, it is evident that as per the first challan no. 436 dated 21.02.2016, a BRC CNG kit with cylinder and stand with bulbs costing Rs. 35,500/- was installed by OP and the said kit had a one year guarantee on it out of the said amount, Rs. 32,000/- was shown as received as Rs. 3,500/- as balance. Further, documents enumerated from 1 to 5 on the said challan were asked for viz RC, insurance, pollution, ID prove and address proof. The second challan no. 774 dated 18.04.2016 was with respect to CKP Advancer costing Rs. 1,500/-. Therefore, the contention of the complainant made in the complaint that Rs. 1,500/- advance token money paid by complainant vide bill no. 774 on 18.02.2016 to OP is incorrect from the face of records as this amount was paid firstly after the purchase of the CNG kit and for CKP Advancer and not advance payment. The complainant has submitted that he had handed over all the requisite documents to the OP as asked for on the challan no. 436 dated 21.02.2016 but on specific query put during the course of oral arguments to file the proof of receiving or acknowledgment, the complainant could not produce the same showing his inability and absence of any such documents. A specific query then was raised on the OP as to why from February 2016 to till June 2016 before the government ban, it could not process the CNG endorsement on RC for documentation, for which OP only stressed on non-submission of documents, onus to prove submission of which lie on the complainant but shifted on the OP to the rebut the same once the complainant averred that he had submitted all the documents. To this extent we find OP guilty of deficiency of service for its act of omission for having taken steps to process the CNG kit endorsement on RC for four months because the ban came only on 20.06.2016 whereas the CNG kit was purchased four months prior to it on 21.02.2016. However, the CNG kit was installed by the OP in complainant’s car against which Rs. 3,500/- still remained unpaid and since the government ban came into forth from 20.06.2016, the matter is now a public policy issue and admittedly since the complainant’s car was an ‘in-use’ car, the CNG kit endorsement cannot be made on its RC till the ban is lifted. During the course of oral arguments, OP submitted that the said ban has been lifted some time in 2017 but he cannot process the CNG Registration work since his licence has been revoked / cancelled. However no refund of CNG kit can be allowed since it is neither the fault of the complainant nor OP for having / getting the said kit installed in February 2016 and even otherwise no manufacturing defect has been alleged with respect thereto. However, the complainant deserves compensation from OP for its inaction / act of omission for having failed to get the CNG endorsement in RC since February 2016 and therefore cannot be allowed to take shelter of a ban which came four months thereafter.
We may therefore advert to the core question viz as to whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation and if any, quantum thereof.
Compensation is for vindicating the strength of law and acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil and aims at improving work culture and changing the outlook of officer/public servant and discourages arrogation of power in arbitrary manner. Hon'ble National Commission in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Yogesh Chandragupta in RP No. 128/2000 decided on 06.12.2004 held that where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the commission / Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic Vs Addl. Collector of Customs (2006) 3 SCC 721 held that deficiency in service is must to award compensation and such deficiency must manifest itself for entitling complainant to compensation.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Landmark judgment of Charan Singh Vs Healing Touch AIR 2000 SC 3138 observed that while quantifying damages, consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual but also aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of service provider. Indeed no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application / calculation of damages but relevant factors be taken into a count for assessing compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles or moderation. It is for the consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GDA Vs Balbir Singh AIR 2004 SC 2141 held inter alia that consumer Forums could grant damage/ compensation for mental agony/harassment based on finding of loss or injury where it finds misfeasance in public office.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, Consumers are provided with an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy for redressal of their disputes in simple and inexpensive manner. Therefore, keeping in view the preamble and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, the interest and protection of consumer is paramount and considering that a layman is not familiar with legal proceedings and nuances of drafting, leniency and guidance is shown towards complainants unaided by counsels. The CPA being a beneficial legislation for the rescue of Consumers, the Forums are watch guards to protect their interests.
In the present case it is admitted that the CNG kit was installed in complainant’s ‘in-use’ car February 2016 but no endorsement on RC could be done by OP for a considerable period of time and therefore it cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong by seeking refuge under a government ban and flimsy plea on non-submission of documents to escape its contractual liability towards the complainant.
After due appreciation of the facts and documentary evidence placed on record and pleadings filed before us we have no hesitation in concluding that there has been a gross negligence and deficiency of service writ large on the part of OP in so far as RC endorsement of CNG kit process is concerned.
We therefore allow the present complaint partly and deem fit to allow the prayer of the complainant for compensation as justifiable and direct the OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment, agony and inconvenience caused to him for deficiency in service and act of omission on the part of OP for failure to get the CNG kit endorsement in the RC of the complainant’s car. Let the order be complied with OP within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced on 09.10.2020
(Arun Kumar Arya)
President(Addl.Charge)
(Sonica Mehrotra)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.