Anup K. Thakur 1. This Revision Petition No.1682 of 2015 (RP) challenges the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short, ‘the State Commission’) dated 06.04.2015. Vide this order, F.A. No.725 of 2011 challenging the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short, ‘the District Forum’) dated 14.03.2011 had been partly allowed. The District Forum, in its turn, had partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner/OP2-M/s Force Motors Limited (OP2 hereafter) to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order. On appeal, the State Commission, vide the impugned order, had raised the amount of compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.60,000/-, with interest @ 8% from the date of complaint till actual payment. Cost of litigation was also increased from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 2. Very briefly, the facts are that Shri Swaranjit Singh, respondent no.1/complainant (complainant hereafter) had purchased Traveller E-II, 12/15 seater vehicle from OP1-M/s. Gurvir Motors (P) Ltd. on 09.01.2010 for Rs.7,79,675/-, to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment. The said vehicle began to give trouble from day one: problems of bubbling/vibrating while driving which increased gradually. Complainant took the vehicle to OP1-M/s. Gurvir Motors (P) Ltd.: defect was found in Crown Wheel Pinion and was replaced free of cost. Again, just after about 750 KM, the same problem repeated in the Crown Wheel Pinion. In this period, power steering also gave problems when the vehicle was taken to hilly areas. This problem too was brought to the notice of OP1 who advised repair from a Chandigarh Workshop. This was done. Thereafter, locks of all the doors became defective: doors started opening automatically while the vehicle was on road. Once again, the complainant approached OP1 and locks were replaced. Still further, the alternator was defective. Coolant used to leak, temperature of the vehicle used to go up. OP1 repaired the alternator a number of times. The cooling system of the air conditioner did not work satisfactorily and so on. The essential point in the complaint was that the vehicle gave trouble from the word go, after it’s purchase, suggesting manufacturing defect; the relief sought in the consumer complaint was a full refund of the sum paid for the vehicle, with associated costs such as insurance etc., and compensation for mental tension, loss of business etc. 3. The District Forum, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, decided the matter in favour of the complainant. The relevant portion of the order is as under: “20. In the present case, it is not in dispute that within four months of purchase the vehicle for purpose of repairs had to be taken time and again to the workshop of the OPs. Not once or twice but on many occasions, whenever he took the vehicle to the workshop was prevented from operating the same, hitting his pocket due to lack of earning, when the vehicle remained parked with OP1 for the purpose of repair. Such repairs were carried out by OP1 by doing under the warranty. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that the vehicle had certain defective components such as battery, Crown Wheel Pinion and Power steering. As due to fitting of defective parts, OP was forced to change twice Crown Wheel Pinion and Power steering. Had those parts no defect, complainant would not have been forced to take vehicle time and again to the workshop of OPs for the purpose of repairs. Also it is established that nuts and bolts of the vehicle initially manufactured and assembled by OP1 were not of the standard quality, due to which they got loosened while plying. But we cannot believe defence of OPs that such nuts and bolts got loosened on account of rash driving of the driver. Of course, such nuts and bolts were subsequently replaced by OPs. It means, have caused mental agony and sufferance to the complainant. During first four months of purchase of the vehicle complainant was compelled to take the same for service etc., many times which must have caused loss in earning to him. 21. These aspects make us to believe that the vehicle initially sold had manufacturing defect. Though defects in the vehicle were rectified by replacing defective parts, but for selling vehicle with defective parts, would certainly amount to negligent act amounting to unfair trade practice. Such act must have caused financial loss to the complainant for which he deserve to be compensated by allowing the complaint. 22. As a result, we allow this complaint and consequently, for selling initially vehicle with defective parts, manufactured by OP2, we order them to pay compensation of ₹20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) along with litigation cost of ₹2,000/- (Two thousand only) to the complainant, within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order, which be supplied to the parties free of cost. OP1 would be entitled to get reimbursement of this amount from OP2. File be consigned to record room.” 4. This RP was heard on 30.07.2019. Leaned counsels also drew attention to citations in support of their respective contentions which were handed over. Order was reserved. 5. Counsel for the petitioner/Force Motors Ltd./OP2 at the outset submitted that the consumer complaint was not on whether or not either OP1, the dealer or OP2/ the manufacturer did not attend to the complaints about the vehicle; rather, it was that from the day one, there was trouble and therefore, there were manufacturing defect(s). So, it was not the service of OPs No.1 and 2 which was the subject matter of the complaint; rather, it was whether there was a manufacturing defect(s). It is this allegation of manufacturing defect which was not acceptable to OPs. Drawing attention to relevant paras of the complaint, wherein reported defects such as Crown Wheel Pinion, Power steering, cooling system, coolant etc. have been discussed, ending with an allegation of the staff misbehaving with the complainant, learned counsel for OP-2 submitted that all this however did not establish any manufacturing defect; rather, the defects which were all functional and operational in nature, and capable of repair had been always attended to promptly. Counsel further submitted that the OPs had not challenged the order of the District Forum. However, the complainants had, and the State Commission had increased the compensation to Rs.60,000/-, without any basis. He further submitted that the State Commission had not taken due note of the clear factual submission made in the written version filed by OP 2 before the District Forum to the effect that it was crystal clear from the record of service history that the vehicle had been plying continuously from 8.2.2010, date of first service, till 16.10.2010, date of 7th service, in which period it had recorded 55,928 km. i.e. almost 200 km per day. He then drew attention to vehicle’s history to point out that as on 2.6.2011, the speedometer showed a reading of 94,760 km. which translated to an average of 187 km per day, (and that ,as on 20.05.2011, as per written submission on record), it had covered 2,40,963 km. Counsel also made a point that at 94,700 km the vehicle speedometer had failed; therefore, the possibility of vehicle having been used even more than 2,40,963 km could be ruled out. Further, the counsel argued that there were rulings of the NCDRC which laid down the law in such matters which was to the effect that the consumer fora would have to consider the number of miles/km done by the vehicle regardless of other evidence, and that merely because a vehicle went to workshop many times did not establish manufacturing defect(s). 6. Counsel for the respondent no.1/complainant started his arguments by submitting that since the District Forum’s order had gone unchallenged by the petitioner, and the State Commission had been approached by the complainant for increasing compensation, most of the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner were not maintainable. If the arguments had to be made, the petitioner/OP2 ought to have gone in appeal against the order of the District Forum. He further argued that it was not the case that the District Forum had not referred to manufacturing defect: Para 21 of the order of the District Forum clearly recorded that “these aspects make us to believe that the vehicle initially sold had manufacturing defect”. Counsel submitted therefore that while replacement of defective parts had been done, it is the case of the complainant that higher compensation was deserved as the vehicle gave frequent problems while in operation. Counsel further drew attention to the impugned order of the State Commission wherein the State Commission had taken pains to record the nature of defects and had, through cogent reasoning in para 9 of the impugned order, awarded a higher compensation. He also invited attention to the job cards that had been submitted pursuant to the National Commission’s order dated 23.7.2015 directing that the concerned Director of the OP Company file an affidavit, with all job cards pertaining to the service and removal of defects of the subject vehicle, and argued that all the defects noted in the job cards had been so noted by the OPs themselves and nowhere had it been recorded that the defects were on account of either heavy running of the vehicle or rash driving. He ended his arguments by submitting that the very fact that the OP had attended to each complaint was an admission of sorts by the OP 2 that there were defects in the vehicle which were recurrent in nature. 7. After hearing arguments of the learned counsels and a careful perusal of the record, I am inclined to agree with the impugned order of the State Commission. The operative part of order of the State Commission, para 9, reads as under: “From the above job card, it is evident that within the four months of the purchase of the vehicle, it has(had) to be taken for the purpose of repairs time and again to the workshop of the OPs. We cannot ignore this fact that the vehicle had certain defective components such as battery, Crown wheel pinion and power steering and due to some defective manufacturing parts. The OP was obliged to change crown wheel pinion and power steering twice of this vehicle. It is established that nuts and bolts of the vehicle as initially manufactured and assembled by OP No.1 were not of the standard quality, due to which they got loose while plying. The version of the OP is that such nuts and bolts were got loose due to rash driving of the vehicle by the complainant alone, but this version is not acceptable. We find that the complainant is entitled to compensation in this case. The District Forum has awarded meager amount of compensation to the complainant, which requires modification with regard to its quantum in this appeal. The complainant had to face a lot of harassment on account of above troubles in the vehicle just after its purchase. The complainant was forced to take the vehicle to the OPs time and again to remove the troubles given by it. District Forum awarded the compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which is on the lower side in our estimation. Consequently, we find that the appropriate compensation which the complainant is entitled to receive from the OPs would be of Rs.60,000/-. We hereby raised the amount of compensation from Rs.20,000/- as awarded by District Forum to Rs.60,000/- in this appeal and we further award the interest @ 8% from the date of complaint till actual payment over the above amount to the complainant. We also enhance the cost of litigation from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- in this appeal, as complainant had to face the consumer forums repeatedly.” 8. Indeed, it is hard to find any error of law or fact or reasoning or any material irregularity in the impugned order of the State Commission. It, on the basis of record, had correctly concluded that the very fact that within four months of purchase, the vehicle had to be sent to the workshop for repairs, time and again, and various defective components such as battery, Crown Wheel Pinion and Power steering etc. had to be replaced, tells its own story. This would be hard to ignore. It may be added that the vehicle had been purchased for purpose of plying to earn a livelihood. If so, each time it went to the workshop, it was, for the complaint, time lost and therefore earnings lost. So, the State Commission found it a fit case for award of higher compensation. This was, in the facts of the case, eminently justified. The citations presented on behalf of the petitioner/OP-2 are of no avail in the case at hand as in this RP, it is not a case qua manufacturing defect; rather, it is a case of awarding enhanced compensation due to frequent visits to the workshop, resulting in idle time and lost earnings. I find no error apparent in the impugned order which would occasion any revisionary interference. This Revision Petition therefore fails. 9. Accordingly, this Revision Petition, after consideration, is dismissed. No order as to costs. |
