Haryana

StateCommission

A/913/2017

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHYAM SUNDER - Opp.Party(s)

MANISH JAIN

10 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                     First Appeal No  :   1181 of 2016 & 913 of 2017

Date of Institution:  09.12.2016 & 01.08.2017

                                     Date of Decision:   10.11.2017

 

 

Appeal No.1181 of 2016

 

 

 

Shyam Sunder son of Sh. Jhabarmal, resident of Nangal Dargu, Tehsil Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Mahindra Truck and Buses Limited, Survey No.175 Village Sudawadi Tal Maval, District Pune through its General Manager.

2.      Manager, Regional Office-Mahindra Towers, UG Floor 2A, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi through its Manager.

3.      Authorized Dealers Sanghi Trucks, Authorized Dealer Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Village Mandi, Nangal Chaudhary Road, Narnaul-123001.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

Appeal No.913 of 2017

 

 

Mahindra Truck and Buses Limited, Survey No.175 Village Sudawadi Tal Maval, District Pune through its General Manager.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Shyam Sunder son of Sh. Jhabarmal, resident of Nangal Dargu, Tehsil Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Authorized Dealers Sanghi Trucks, Authorized Dealer Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Village Mandi, Nangal Chaudhary Road, Narnaul-123001.

3.      Manager, Regional Office, Mahindra Towers, UG Floor, 2A, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

 

Argued:      Shri Vikas Lochab, Advocate for Shyam Sunder-Complainant

                   Shri Mayur Kanwar, Advocate for Mahindra Truck and Buses Limited-opposite party No.1

                   (Service of opposite parties No.2 & 3 dispensed with vide order dated August 02^nd, 2017).

                  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This order disposes of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.1181 of 2016 filed by Shyam Sunder-complainant and 913 of 2017 filed by Mahindra Truck and Buses Limited (manufacturer) because they have arisen out of common order dated September 16^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short, ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.140 of 2015. 

2.      On February 19^th, 2014 the complainant purchased vehicle bearing registration No.HR66A-5159 from Sanghi Trucks, Narnaul-opposite party No.3 (authorized dealer) for Rs.26,15,000/-.  After a few days of its purchase, the vehicle developed some defects.  The complainant brought the vehicle to the authorized dealer.  Thereafter, the vehicle was brought to S.K. Motors Private Limited, Jaipur.  The defects could not be removed.  The vehicle remained parked at Jaipur for about 1 ½ months.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to compensate him.  The opposite parties paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.  The opposite parties failed to rectify the defects in the vehicle.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte before the District Forum.

4.      The opposite party No.3 (Dealer), in its, written version pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Remaining contents of the complaint were denied.

5.      The District Forum vide impugned order directed the manufacturer to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation; Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant and to remove the defects in the vehicle.

6.      Alongwith Appeal No.913 of 2017 the manufacturer has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 189 days delay in filing the appeal. The ground taken in the application is that the manufacturer was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum.  The manufacturer came to know about the impugned order only after receiving the notice of connected appeal No.1181 of 2016. 

7.      Learned counsel for the manufacturer has contended that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the manufacturer.

8.      A 30 days period has been prescribed in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’), for filing appeal against the order of the District Forum. However, the proviso contained therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined in the Act, rightly so, because it would vary per facts and circumstances of each particular case.

9.      It is well settled that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity. While proceeding with the prayer made it has to be kept in mind that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed gives a right to the adversary to treat the order as binding between the parties and this legal right provided by lapse of time should not be disturbed light heartedly. Similar view dovetails from the following authoritative pronouncements:-

10.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held as under:-

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay.”

11.    In State of Nagaland versus Lipokao and others 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 414 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to get any appeal admitted or to get the delay condoned, it is condition precedent to first prove the “sufficient cause” for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay. Unless and until the sufficient cause is not proved, the delay cannot be condoned.

12.    Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012(2) CPC 3 (SC)–Anshul Aggarwal  Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority  observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

 

13.    In the case in hand, the ground taken in the application is manifestation of the laxity, negligence and inefficiency.  To accept such ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay would tantamount to putting premium on the parties own acts of negligence and non challance.  So, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone the delay of 189 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

14.    Indisputably, the complainant purchased the vehicle from the dealer.  The opposite parties failed to rectify the defects in the vehicle.  The vehicle was remained with the opposite parties for about one and half months.   They paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.  The complainant placed on record report (Annexure C-10) of Ramesh Motor Workshop, Nangal Chaudhary whereby it was reported that there was problem in gear, suspension, hydraulic jack, wheel tubes, mileage etc.   The manufacturer did not lead any evidence to prove that there was no inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. That is why, they chose to compensate the complainant by making payment of Rs.1,50,000/-.  Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of manufacturer.     

15.    The complainant has filed the appeal for enhancement stating that the amount awarded by the District Forum is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. 

16.    The District Forum not only directed the manufacturer to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant but also awarded Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.  Besides this, the manufacturer was also directed to remove the defects in the vehicle. This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated.

17.    For the reasons recorded supra, the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference.  Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

18.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 10.11.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President