Haryana

StateCommission

A/971/2017

TATA MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SHIV KUMAR

04 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.872   of 2017

 Date of Institution:21.07.2017

  Date  of  Decision:04.07.2019

 

1.      M/s Metro Motors, 106, Railway road, Ambala Cantt.

2.      Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business Unit, KD 03, Car Plant, Sector-15 and 15 Apontda Chikhali, Pune 410501.

…..Appellants

 

Versus

 

Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Shri Sohan Lal, R/o Sanjay Colony Cheeka, Tehsil Ghula, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).

….. Respondent

F.A. No.971 of 2017

Date of institution:-11.08.2017

Date of Decision:-04.07.2019

 

Tata Motors Passenger Car Business Unit KD 03, Car Plant, Sector-15 and 15 Apontda Chikhali, Pune 410501

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Shri Sohan Lal, R/o Sanjay Colony Cheeka, Tehsil Ghula, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).

2.      M/s Metro Motors 106, Rialway road, Ambala Cantt. through its Managing Director.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                   Mrs.Manjula, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for the appellant in appeal No.872 of 2017 and respondent No.2 in  appeal No.971 of 2017.

                   Mr. D.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondent No.2 in both the appeals.

                   Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant in appeal No.971 of 2017.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

           Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing No.872 of 2011 and appeal No.971 of 2017 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that he booked a car Tata Model Indigo (Diesel) with the opposite party No.1.  The O.P.No.2 was authorised dealer of the vehicle. The car was given to him by O.P.No.1 after full payment of Rs.5,20,670/- vide invoice dated 18.02.2013.  He applied for registration of the car and he was surprised to know about the model of the car was 2012, whereas the O.P.No.1 charged the price of car model 2013.  He visited the office of O.P.No.1  as well as O.P.No.2 to replace the car with new one of Model 2013, but, to no avail.  He served the O.Ps with legal notice dated 04.09.2013, but, all in vain.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      O.Ps. on being served with the notice of the consumer complaint filed written statements. It was alleged that due to some typographical error, the model was mentioned as 2-012 instead of 2013. The fresh sale certificate was issued, which mentions the model as 2013.  There was no fault on the part of the O.Ps.   Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint, concealment of true facts, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 23.06.2017 and  directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs,1,00,000/- as compensation failing which, they will be liable to pay interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount for the period of default. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.5000/- as costs on account of litigation expenses.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1 as well as O.P.No.2 have preferred aforesaid appeals.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for the appellant in appeal No.872 of 2017 and respondent No.2 in  appeal No.971 of 2017 as well as           Mr. D.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondent No.2 in both the appeals and   Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant in appeal No.971 of 2017. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      In appeal, the appellants-opposite parties  in both the appeals took the plea that  due to typographical error, the model was mentioned as 2012 instead of 2013.  The sale certificate mentions the model of the vehicle as 2013.  There was no fault  on the part of the O.Ps.  The complainant is not entitled to get new vehicle as well as compensation as prayed for.

9.      Since the fresh sale certificate was issued after purchase of the vehicle and the complainant suffered loss due to old model of the vehicle.  The complainant has a legal right to approach the court for seeking the adequate amount of the compensation.  The liability is upon the  opposite party No.1-M/s Metro Motors only to pay the compensation.  The learned District Forum has allowed  compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which is on higher side. The order passed by the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that complainant would be entitled to Rs.50,000/- lumpsum  instead of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs.21,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/-.  The O.P.No.1-M/s Metro Motors is directed to pay  Rs.50,000/- lumpsum to the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.872 of 2017 by the appellant be refunded to the complainant-respondent No.1 against proper receipt and due verification. With the above modification, appeal  bearing No.872 of 2017 stands disposed off.

10.    As far as appeal bearing No.971 of 2017 is concerned,  no liability is fixed upon appellant in appeal No.971 of 2017-Tata Motors-manufacturer and appeal, as such, stands disposed off.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.971 of 2017 by the appellant be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 12.   The original judgement be attached with appeal No.872 of 2017 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.971 of 2017.

 

 

July 04th, 2019        Mrs.Manjula                         Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                    Member                                 Judicial Member                                                                 Addl.Bench                          Addl.Bench             

S.K.