(1) Appeal case No.183/2010 Surinder Singh Siao, advocate S/o Sh.Sucha Singh, R/o #3178, Sector-47-D, Chandigarh. …Appellant Versus - M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd (Authorized dealer- Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.) through its Executive Director (Mr.Pardeep Mittal), office at Plot No.26-B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002.
- M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., SCO No.17, Ist Floor, Sector-26 D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019 through its Manager/Area Manager.
- M/s Mahindra Renault Pvt. Ltd. Factory: Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Nashhik Plant, 89, MIDC, Satpur Nashik-422007(Maharashtra) through its Pro./Manager.
--Respondents Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 5.4.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh. Argued by : Sh. J.S.Dhaliwal, advocate for appellant Sh.Krishan Singla, advocate for respondent No.1 Sh.Neeraj Sharma,advocate for respondents NO.2 & 3 (2) Appeal case No.192/2010 Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, through its duly authorized signatory, SCO No.17, Ist Floor, Sector-26-D, Chandigarh. …Appellant Versus 1. Surinder Singh Siao, advocate S/o Sh.Sucha Singh, R/o #3178, Sector-47-D, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. through its Executive Director, Shri Pardeep Mittal, office at Plot No.26-B, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002. 3. Mahindra Renault private Limited, Factory : Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Nashik Plant, 89, MIDC, Satpur Nashik-422007(Maharashtra) through its Prop./Manager. . . ..Respondents Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 5.4.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh. Argued by : Sh. Neeraj Sharma, advocate for appellant Sh.J.S.Dhaliwal, advocate for respondent No.1 Sh.Krishan Singla, advocate for respondents NO.2 Sh.Neeraj Sharma, advocate for respondent No.3. (3) Appeal case No.194/2010 M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. through its Executive Director, Shri Pardeep Mittal, office at Plot No.26-B, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002. ……Appellant Versus 1. Surinder Singh Siao, advocate S/o Sh.Sucha Singh, R/o #3178, Sector-47-D, Chandigarh. 2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., SCO No. 17, 1st Floor, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh. 3. Mahindra Renault private Limited, Factory : Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Nashhik Plant, 89, MIDC, Satpur Nashik-422007(Maharashtra) through its Prop./Manager. ….. Respondents. Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 5.4.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh. Argued by:Sh. Krishan Singla, advocate for appellant Sh.J.S.Dhaliwal, advocate for respondents NO.1 Sh.Neeraj Sharma,advocate for respondent No. 2&3 (4) Appeal case No.200/2010 Mahindra Renault private Limited, Factory : Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Nashhik Plant, 89, MIDC, Satpur Nashik-422007(Maharashtra) through its Duly authorized signatory. …Appellant Versus - Surinder Singh Siao, advocate S/o Sh.Sucha Singh, R/o #3178,
Sector-47-D, Chandigarh. - M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. through its Executive Director, Shri Pardeep Mittal, office at Plot No.26-B, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002.
- Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., through its Manager/Area Manager, SCO No. 17,Ist Floor, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh
. . ..Respondents Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 5.4.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh. Argued by : Sh. Neeraj Sharma, advocate for appellant Sh.J.S.Dhaliwal, advocate for respondent No.1 Sh.Krishan Singla,advocate for respondents NO.2 Sh.Neeraj Sharma,advocate for respondent No.3. BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member JUDGMENT 8.12.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. The aforementioned four appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum- II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.428 of 2008 filed by Sh.Surinder Singh Siao, advocate, complainant was allowed and the Opposite parties(in the complaint) were directed to pay, jointly and severally a consolidated compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain, in addition to the inconvenience and embarrassment caused to him in pursuing his professional duties, apart from suffering financial loss. The District Forum also imposed punitive damages to the tune of Rs.2.00 Lakh which were to be deposited by OPs with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T.Chandigarh. The order was directed to be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they were made liable to pay the sum of Rs.2.50 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 21.4.2008 till actual realization. 2. In fact appeal No.183/2010 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation whereas appeals bearing No.192/2010 & 200/2010 have been filed by OPs No.2&3–manufacturer of the car in question and appeal No.194/2010 has been filed by the dealer – OP NO.1 for setting aside the impugned order. Since, in all these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 4. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these four appeals may be recapitulated thus ; The Complainant purchased one LOGAN GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) Car (new Model) from OP No. 1 - an authorized dealer of OPs No. 2 & 3, who allotted a Temporary Regn. No. CH 23(T) 7648 to the said Car. The delivery of the car was given to the Complainant on 6.2.2008, along with relevant documents mentioned in Para No. 1 of the complaint. The Car was also got insured from New India Assurance Company Ltd. at the premises of the OP No. 1. It was alleged that the complainant was required to get the registration of the Car within one month i.e. upto 5.3.2008, so on 28.2.2008 when he went to the Registering Authority, U.T. Chandigarh to get permanent Registration number, Form No. 22, issued by OP No. 1 to the Complainant was returned by the Registering Authority with the objection that it had not been countersigned by OP No. 2, along with a covering letter issued by OP No. 2 or 3. Subsequently, the Complainant got the necessary formalities completed on his own and submitted the papers to the Registering Authority on 29.2.2008 but his Car was not registered by the Registering Authority as he had not attached a confirmation letter issued by the Secretary Home, Chandigarh with regard to the confirmation & approval of new model of Logan GLX 1.6 car which OP No.1 was required to obtain from the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh before placing the latest new model of Logan GLX 1.6 Car on sale but it failed to do so and sold the Car to the Complainant, without getting any such certificate which amounted to an unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1. The Complainant then asked OP No 1 to provide the requisite confirmation to him by 9.3.2008, so that he could get registered his vehicle by 10.3.2008 i.e. the date given by the Registering Authority for the purpose. But the same was not done and he was compelled to get the date extended upto 28.3.2008. Ultimately Registering & Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh returned the original file along with the forwarding letter to the Complainant on 17.4.2008 stating therein that the Logan GLX 1.6 Petrol Car could not be registered because the manufacturer had not obtained the approval of Secretary Transport, U.T. Chandigarh. It was alleged that the Complainant being a practicing advocate had to visit a number of places and in the absence of proper registration of the Car, he could not use the same and as a result of which, he had to hire a Taxi @ Rs.500/- per day and, therefore, he had incurred a huge expenditure on account of transport while discharging his professional duty owing to the negligence on the part of OPs. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 5. On the other hand, OP No.1 contested the complaint before the District Forum and filed reply inter-alia stating therein that it was only a Dealer and not the manufacture of the Car, therefore, it had no role to play in the manufacturing, certification and approval for registration of a vehicle. It was pleaded that the certification of compliance with the relevant rules is done by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune, on which basis the administration of each State and U.T. grants approval for the registration of a particular vehicle in their respective areas and in the present case the certification of the concerned vehicle was done by ARAI vide certificate dated 7.2.2007, based upon which the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration granted approval for registration of the vehicle, vide endorsement to manufacturer letter No. 6098, dated 29.3.2007, which was reiterated vide letter No. 3188, dated 14.2.2008. However, on both occasions an inadvertent mistake occurred in wrongly mentioning the correct nomenclature of the vehicle i.e. the word “GSL” was mentioned instead of “GLX” and upon detecting the bonafide error, the approval was again applied for the correct nomenclature i.e. GLX and the same was granted vide letter No. 10875-77, dated 29.5.2008 . There was no requirement of countersigning the Form No. 22 and issuance of the covering letter as it had fulfilled all the requirements for proper registration of the vehicle. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 6. However, OPs No. 2 and 3, in their joint reply inter-alia stated that the said vehicle was sold under the bonafide belief that proper approval for its registration was existing. It was pleaded that the inadvertent error in the nomenclature i.e. the mentioning of the word “GSL” instead of “GLX” had escaped their notice earlier and the same was got corrected, immediately, by them when the same came to their knowledge. It was further pleaded that this kind of problem arose only in the Chandigarh area and nowhere else in the country for the said model. They also took identical pleas as were taken by OP No.1 in its reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 7. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties, allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Aggrieved against the said order, Opposite parties as well as complainant have come up in their respective appeals. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. In the first appeal filed by the complainant , its learned counsel contended that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is inadequate and requires to be enhanced as no compensation separately for financial loss suffered by the complainant has been awarded and further no punitive damages to the complainant has been awarded ; whereas in the appeals filed by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Mahindra Renault Pvt. Ltd., it was contended by its learned counsel that there was no evidence on the record to establish Unfair Trade Practice on the part of manufacturer, more so when the genesis of the entire misdeeds came forth only due to inadvertent error and bonafide mistake as the vehicle was sold under the bonafide belief that the proper approval for its registration was existing. The inadvertent error in nomenclature escaped notice earlier and was corrected immediately upon its coming to notice. This problem was encountered only at Chandigarh as other States have been registering the said vehicle inspite of the nomenclature mistake. This was so because the specifications and other details of the vehicle were the same as in the certification of ARAI. It was further contended that the entire approach of the learned District forum in granting compensation was perverse and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and that the award of punitive damages was without any jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside as there was no negligence on the part of manufacturer so same were not warranted in this case. In the third appeal filed by the dealer- N/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. , it was contended that the vehicle in question was duly approved by the relevant authorities much prior to its sale but in the approval letter there was mistake of word GLS instead of GLX which was later on rectified by getting a fresh approval in continuation of the earlier approval.. It was further contended that the dealer plays a role of intermediator between the customer and the company but the Forum No.22 and the approval letter are supplied by the manufacturer but this aspect has not been considered by the learned Forum while granting compensation to the complainant and imposing the penalty. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions put forth on behalf of the parties. Before we proceed further, it would be pertinent to mention here that the factual matrix of this case pertaining to the non-registration of vehicle for want of prior approval of the competent authority before the sale of vehicle is admitted. Not only that, it is also established that the vehicle in question i.e. Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) purchased by the complainant from OPs was not approved by the ARAI, Pune and necessary approval was not obtained from the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration till 29.5.2008. In para-7 of the impugned order at page-17 the learned District Forum after going through the entire evidence and appreciating all the documents in their right perspective has rightly observed as under ; “It is an admitted and established fact that the vehicle in question purchased by the Complainant from the OPs i.e. Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) was not approved by any authority i.e. either ARAI, Pune or Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration till as late as 29.5.2008. All this has resulted in a lot of physical harassment, mental agony, pain, as well as financial loss to the Complainant. The Complainant had to continuously pursue the matter in respect of getting a permanent registration number of his brand new car for more than 3 months, solely due to the fact that the OPs, especially OPs No. 2 & 3 had been grossly careless, negligent and gravely deficient in rendering efficient service towards the Complainant. The basic and fundamental point, which should have been taken care of by the OPs was that no new model of any vehicle/car could be brought in the Market for sale unless and until the same had been got approved from the concerned Authorities i.e. ARAI, Pune, in the first instance and followed by approval from the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, the OPs are not only deficient in service, but has also indulged in an unfair trade practice by misleading the Complainant, as well as public at large into believing that the cars with the model Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) carry the certification, confirmation and approval of the competent authorities and that the buyer shall be able to drive that car on the road without facing any problem or hassles in respect of obtaining its permanent registration.” 10. From the facts of the case and above observations of the learned District Forum which are based on documentary evidence, we are of the considered opinion that there was certainly deficiency in service as well as negligence on the part of OPs who are in fact related inter-se in the matter of running their business of manufacturing and selling the cars of make/type in question one of which was purchased by the complainant. 11. Now adverting to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum. Admittedly the complainant had to run from pillar to post for getting permanent registration number from the Registering authority within a period of one month but he could not complete the formalities because of lack of relevant approval/papers as discussed above which in fact had to be obtained by OPs from the competent authorities prior to the delivery of the vehicle on 6.2.2008. Inspite of pointing out the deficiency/inadequacy of relevant approval/papers for getting registration number the same could not be got done well in time, and on that count the complainant could not bring his vehicle on road till 29.5.2008. During this period, he had to manage another conveyance and some bills of taxi have also been placed on the file. Thus, taking into account physical, mental harassment as well as financial loss of the complainant we feel that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum deserves to be enhanced. At this place, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we also feel that the punitive damages awarded to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs and made payable to the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh is on the higher side. Hence, same is reduced from Rs.2.00 lacs to Rs.one lac. Out of this punitive damages of Rs.one lac, Rs.25,000/- shall go to the complainant. Hence, in all he would be entitled to get total compensation of Rs.75000/- (Rs.50,000/- +Rs.25,000/-). The remaining amount of punitive damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/- shall be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh. In this regard, an intimation shall also be sent to the said legal authority by the office. 12. It is made clear that all OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant and to deposit Rs.75,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T.Chandigarh within thirty days from the date certified copy of the order is received, failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the first appeal till actual realization. 13. In the result, impugned order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the learned District Forum is modified as indicated above and all the four appeals are allowed partly in the aforesaid manner, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
