NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. EICHER MOTORS LIMITED
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-8-2
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 11,2009

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

CHANDER SHEKHER SHARMA - (1.) BOTH these appeals have arisen out of the order passed by District Forum Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 20/2006 on 3.4.2008, as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) APPEAL No. 124/2008 has been filed by Sh. Naveen Kumar hereinafter to be referred as the complainant for enhancement of the compensation and Appeal No. 167/2008 has been filed by Behal Motor hereinafter to be referred as the opposite party for setting aside the order of the District Forum below. Vide impugned order District Forum below has allowed the complaint of the complainant by directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000 as compensation and Rs. 45,000 on account of loss along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.1.2006 till actual payment is made and litigation cost was quantified at Rs. 3500.
(3.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the complaint file are, that complainant Naveen Kumar purchased Eicher Truck LTV manufactured by OP No. 1, and sold by OP No. 3 authorised dealer of the former for a sum of Rs. 6,85,243 for commercial use after obtaining loan from the Punjab National Bank, Shimla. At the time of purchase it was represented by the opposite parties, that they are selling T.C.I. Model. The said truck was delivered to the appellant on 5.4.2004. Thereafter the complainant faced great hardship in getting the registration of the vehicle, since the vehicle which was sold to him by the opposite parties was not approved by the State of Himachal Pradesh. It took 40 days for the complainant to get it passed from the Transport Department, because it was approved for plying on 13.5.2004. It had also come to the notice of the complainant that the truck sold was not TCI Model. Further allegations in the complaint were that the complainant was forced to keep the vehicle off the road and he had suffered loss of Rs. 1,500 to 2,000 per day amounting to Rs. 50,000. Other averments in the complaint were, that the vehicle in question developed number of defects, since its pickup was poor, mileage was low, air pressure was faulty and the pressure indicator did not function properly and the defects persisted despite repairs. This resulted in fling of complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3 and for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 97,000, besides litigation costs. Version of the opposite parties while contesting the complaint was, that there was no deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on their part and it was also alleged that at the time of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, TCI model was not even being manufactured and he had purchased the truck of his own and was also apprised about the fact that the vehicle was not approved by the State of Himachal Pradesh for plying and they also denied about the mechanical defect in the truck in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.