Oral
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1697 of 2008
KTL Pvt. Ltd., Opp. HAL, Indira Nagar,
Faizabad Road, Lucknow. …Appellant.
Versus
1- Tajinder Kaur w/o Shri Surendra Singh,
R/o MM 101, Sector-D-1, LDA Colony,
Kanpur Road, Lucknow (Present Address:
C-20, Sector-F, LDA Colony, Kanpur
Road, Lucknow)
2- Maruti Udyog Limited, 11th Floor,
Jeevan Prakash, 25, Kasturba Gandhi
Marg, New Delhi. .…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.
Sri Manish Malhotra, Ld. counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Date 17.9.2024
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Ld. District Forum-I, Lucknow in complaint case no.537 of 2006, Tajinder Kaur vs. KTL Pvt. Ltd. & another, whereby the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties/appellant to return the value of Maruti Van Cargo Rs.1,91,568.00 alongwith interest payable @9% p.a. The opposite party no.2 was further directed to pay Rs.10,000.00 for mental agony.
As per the case of the complainant, she has purchased Maruti Van Cargo LPG from the defendant on 16.8.2005 by paying Rs.1,91,568.00 for self-employment after taking loan from ICICI Bank Rs.1,55,000.00. The defendants provided two years warranty at the time of purchase of vehicle but within the period of 2-3 months the vehicle developed so many defects. On complaint, the defendant assured that the engine shall adjust itself after use of vehicle for some times. After running about 1200 Kms there was no progress in the quality of working of engine. The complainant used gas cylinder for running the vehicle but again the problem of engine remain sustained. The engine used to stop after pressing accelerator and the average was 7-8 kms per liter. The complainant reported all the problems in the job card on 16.11.2005.
After the service the vehicle was unable to perform properly. The complainant brought the vehicle at the work-shop on 29.11.2005 and 10.12.2005 but the defects were not removed. In January, 2006 the battery of the vehicle discharged. It was changed by the defendants on 7.3.2006 but the battery again discharged and it was changed on 23.5.2006. On 18.3.2006, engineers of the defendant no.2 informed that gas kit is not workable, later on, it was changed but inspite of change the gas kit, the vehicle was not workable properly and due to continuous defects in the vehicle, the complainant suffered the income and getting harassed, therefore, filed the complaint case against defendants for repayment of Rs.1,91,568.00 and Rs.50,000.00 for mental harassment.
Counsel for the defendants appeared before the ld. District Consumer Forum and submitted the Vakalatnama and took time to file written statement but the written statement was never filed before the ld. District Consumer forum. The ld. District Consumer Forum directed to hear the case ex-parte on 15.11.2007 and upon appreciation of evidence passed the judgment and order as mentioned above.
Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that an ex-parte judgment was passed against the appellant. This argument is not tenable because the defendants were served properly and engaged a counsel who filed Vakalatnama before the ld. District Consumer Forum and took time to file the written statement but failed to file the written statement before the ld. District Consumer Forum, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum is uncontroverted. The evidence filed by the complainant is also uncontroverted. It is established doctrine of law that when the allegation of the complaint and evidence filed by the complainant in respect of the allegation is not controverted then there is no occasion to change the findings of the ld. District Consumer Forum unless it is perverse.
After having gone through the judgment this bench finds that there is no perversity in the judgment. The ld. District Consumer Forum appreciated the evidence properly before reaching the conclusion, therefore, no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Ld. District Forum-I, Lucknow in complaint case no.537 of 2006, is confirmed.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Consumer Forum concerned as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sudha Upadhyay) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA I
Court 2
