Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member :
This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 2.11.2006 passed in consumer complaint No. 455/2006 – Roni Abraham V/s The Chairman/CEO, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. & Ors. decided by the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai (‘the Forum’ in short). It is the case in respect of the defect in good and also as submitted at Bar, in respect of the failure to render service to repair the fault in the vehicle viz. leakage problem relating to the vehicle Getz GLS Car bearing registration No. MHO 2 AL 8142. The Forum uphold the contention of the complainant and directed the original opponent No.s 1, 3 & 4 to remove said defect in the car, also awarded compensation of `25,000/- and cost of `5,000/-. However, not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, this appeal is preferred by the original complainant. As submitted on behalf of the appellant, he restrict the appeal only to the quantum of compensation awarded.
Heard the parties. Original opponent No. 2 who is absent today in spite of notice, is the opponent against whom consumer complaint stood dismissed. The contesting parties are before us.
When we asked the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant as to what is the evidence led on behalf of the appellant/original complainant in respect of the compensation claimed and on which evidence he could submit that the compensation awarded is inadequate and therefore, this claim being enhancement of such compensation is justified and thus, the appeal could be admitted. Except referring to the invoice voucher for value of the car which is not in dispute and other job cards reflecting the fact that the dealer carried out the repairs, no other material/evidence is pointed out on the basis of which it can be said that the compensation awarded by the Forum is inadequate. The contesting respondents already submitted that they find it not proper to go in appeal and, thus, no appeal is preferred by them.
As far as dealer of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (which is manufacturer of the car) is concerned, they already had rendered their respective service whenever called for to repair the car and which can be seen from the job cards. Therefore, as against them, certainly no case for compensation for deficient service can be alleged. The manufacturer of the vehicle viz. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. is not a party in the consumer complaint. The ‘Chairman’ or the ‘Chief Executive Officer’ of the said company being a separate and distinct jurisdic person than the company itself in view of the section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the official or the chairman of the company cannot be held responsible for any defect in the vehicle.
Thus, we find that there being no case shown justifying the claim for enhancement for compensation already awarded, we find the appeal is devoid of any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :
O R D E R
The appeal is not admitted and stands rejected.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced dated 11th August 2011.
