H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Appeal No. 236/2008.

Date of Decision 2.6.2009.



1. Tata Motors Ltd. Through its General Manager, Mumbai,



2. Dada Motors Ltd. Savitri Complex-1, G.T. Road, Dholewal,

Ludhiana (Punjab) through its Law Officer Sh. Kiran Deep Singh Bhalla.



……..Appellants.

Versus



Anuj Baloria son of Shri Darshan Singh Baloria,

R/o VPO Rait, Distt. Kangra, HP.

…….Respondent.



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether Approved for reporting? No.



For the Appellants. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate



For the Respondent. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate.



O R D E R:



Per Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, (Member)



This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No. 277/2005 dated 3.7.2008. By means of impugned order, the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the appellants were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days after the receipt of copy of the order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, (5.9.2005) till realization. Cost of Rs. 2000/- has also been awarded.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that respondent purchased a chassis LCV bearing No. 416302MVZ215903 from appellant No.2 who is the authorized dealer/agent of appellant No.1, for Rs. 6,53,740/- on 14.5.2005. Respondent had asked for the latest model chassis of 2005 with the sitting capacity of 29+2. During the purchase of chassis, appellant No. 2 assured that it is the latest model and is having requisite sitting capacity. Delivery of the vehicle /chassis was given to the respondent on 15.5.2005, and certificate of sale was issued on 25.6.2005.

3. Respondent came to know that the vehicle is of old model i.e. 2004 when he submitted the case for seeking permission from the Director Transport, HP for plying the vehicle with capacity of 29+2, and during the passing of the vehicle, it was revealed by Motor Vehicle Inspector, that the capacity of the vehicle was 27+2. As such complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the appellants. Since it was a case of unfair trade practice, respondent also claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- has been claimed as loss suffered due to the deficient acts of the appellants alongwith cost of Rs. 7,000/-.

4. Appellants in the present case filed their version while contesting the case and submitted that they had sold LPT 1109 with cabin popularly known as Truck chassis having capacity of 2+1, and the respondent illegally converted the said chassis into bus without the prior permission of transport authorities and informing the appellants.

5. In this behalf when the sale certificate dated 20.1.2005 is seen, it is crystal clear that appellants sold the chassis to the respondent with sitting capacity including driver being 29+2. They have denied that at the time of purchase, they assured the respondent that it was a latest model and its sitting capacity was 27+2, thus according to them there was no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice adopted by them.

6. Respondent has also filed rejoinder to the complaint wherein the stand taken by him in the complaint was reiterated.

7. The brief resume of the evidence led by the appellants ,as well as of the respondent in nutshell is that the respondent has filed evidence by way of his own affidavit and documents viz. Form No. 22 Annexure C-1, vehicle delivery certificate-cum-gate pass dated 14.5.2005 Annexure C-2, sale certificate Annexure C-3, Invoice dated 25.6.2005 Annexure C-4, RC Annexure C-5, Tax installment statement Annexure C-6, conditions of important unit and system Annexure C-7 and affidavit Annexure C-8. On the other hand appellants have only filed their version.

8. We have heard Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record of the case file.

9. Mr. Chauhan has argued that respondent has purchased LPT 1109 with cabin having sitting capacity of 2+1 and it was within the knowledge of the respondent that the chassis was of the year 2004 since discount of Rs. 25,000/- was also given to the respondent, as such there was no unfair trade practice adopted by the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of District Forum below. Per him the chassis supplied was 2004 model, whereas the respondent had asked for model of 2005 with the sitting capacity of the vehicle being 29+2 instead of 27+2.

10. After hearing both the parties, as well as after going through the record of the case, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the order passed by District Forum below while allowing the complaint by holding the appellants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, besides cost of litigation.

11. In the present case from the minute examination of the case/documentary evidence on record it is clear that the chassis which was sold to the respondent by the appellant No.2 that was having capacity of 27+2 and it was 2004 model. This is clear from a bare perusal of sale certificate Annexure C-3 legible copy of sale certificate which is at page 59 of the complaint file, in its column No.9 the seating capacity including driver is shown as 29+2 and in column No. 8 the year of manufacture has been given as 2004 and in column No. 1 class of vehicle is given as LCV. Even from the perusal of Annexure C-5 which is RC of the vehicle, it is quite clear that it pertains to vehicle having chassis No. 416302MVZ215903 and engine No. 497TC85MVZ134653 and in this document the sitting capacity including driver has been shown to be 27+2. All these documents clearly support the version of the respondent. On the other hand the appellants have not produced any document in support of their defence that in fact they sold LCV having capacity of 2+1. Since, in the present case respondent had been delivered the vehicle having sitting capacity of 27+2 instead of 29+2, as such there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants. Hence in view of the aforesaid discussion there appears no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants and the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent is well founded.

12. No other point is urged.

As such keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and also as per the documentary evidence which has come on record there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the District Forum below, and the complaint has rightly been allowed as such there is no reason to interfere with the said order while dismissing this appeal and the same is upheld.

All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect coy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.



Shimla.

2nd June, 2009 (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

Karan* President.





(Saroj Sharma)

Member.



(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member.