IA/3816/2018 (Application for exemption from filing typed copies of documents)

          Allowed.

Revision Petition

This Revision Petition, by a Dealer in the cars manufactured by Ford Motors, is directed against the order dated 24.11.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 624 of 2017.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 20.07.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 721 of 2015.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in charging money from him for the repairs carried out in the vehicle in question, namely, Ford Figo, during the warranty period, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to: refund to the Complainant a sum of ₹1,25,587/- charged from him against the bills raised for the repairs carried out in the vehicle; pay to him a sum of ₹10,000/- as compensation for the mental tension, harassment and inconvenience caused to him; and ₹5,000/- as litigation costs.  The District Forum had reached the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner as it had not led any evidence in support of its stand that the cause for the defects rectified was use of adulterated fuel in the vehicle. 

As noted above, the State Commission has upheld the said finding returned by the District Forum, observing thus:

“7.      …  After reading this cross-examination of this witness, it is revealed that customer information report Ex. C-4 is self-serving report and prepared in the office of OP No.1 only.  OP No.1 should have examined the person, who prepared the customer information report.  Neither any mechanical engineer was examined by OP No.1, nor any affidavit was filed by the concerned person who checked the alleged vehicle and prepared report Ex. C-4 and came to above conclusion on that basis.  Mere report is meaningless, unless the person who prepared it supports it with his reasons and experience.  OP No.1 cannot shirk its liability by only relying upon this point that it handed over the contents of fuel to complainant.  OP No.1 should have got examined the fuel from some recognized laboratory as it was not a case of the complainant that his vehicle was damaged due to contaminated fuel.  Without laboratory report and any expert’s evidence, we cannot rely upon customer information report Ex. C-4, which is regarding defect in vehicle due to contaminated fuel.  …”

Questioning the correctness and legality of the afore-extracted finding, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that both the Fora below have committed material irregularity in arriving at the afore-noted conclusion because the Complainant had himself accepted the fact that the fuel purchased by him from Opposite Party No.2 was adulterated.

Having heard the Learned Counsel and perused the pleadings carefully, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the Learned Counsel.  Despite valiant attempt, Learned Counsel has not been able to point out any document, wherein the Complainant had admitted that the fuel used by him in the vehicle was adulterated.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the afore-noted concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below, warranting interference in the Limited Revisional Jurisdiction vested in this Commission.

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

Needless to add that dismissal of this Petition will not be an impediment in the Petitioner’s recovering the amount, directed to be paid by the Fora below, from the Manufacturer, if it is otherwise entitled to under the Distribution Agreement with the Manufacturer.