TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. CHUNI LAL VERMA
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Chuni Lal Verma
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL -
(1.) SINCE all these appeals are directed against the order dated 8.5.2008, passed by District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 438/2001, as such they were heard. Facts as they emerge from the record of the case are, that Chuni Lal, hereinafter to be referred as the complainant purchased a Tata Indica Car from M/s. Hind Motors, Chandigarh who is the authorized dealer of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Respondent No. 3 is the authorized agent of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. All three of them are being referred to hereinafter as OP Nos. 1 to 3 respectively.
(2.) TATA Indica Car as detailed in the complaint was sold by OP No. 2 and its manufacturer is OP No. l. It was sold in the month of 4/2000 i.e. April 2004. Case of the complainant is, that it was in fact 1999 model, but has been passed of as 2000 Model. When put to notice stand of the OPs was, that price fixation is not a matter within the domain of Consumer Fora. Further according to the OPs Fora at Shimla lacked territorial jurisdiction, because no cause of action arose in its favour at Shimla. Above all vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and thus complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable. In this background dismissal of complaint was prayed for. Parties produced evidence in the shape of documents, photographs as well as affidavits. District Forum below after considering the entire material before it allowed the complaint in the following term: "In view of our findings on above points, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct the OP Nos. l and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant for committing unfair trade practice. We also direct the OP Nos. l and 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation to complainant for mental agony, torture and harassment to the tune of Rs. 25,000. We also direct the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay costs to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,000. In addition, we also direct the OP Nos. l and 2 to pay interest to the complainant qua awarded amount at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of institution of the complaint, i.e. 2.3.2001 till realization. The complaint against the OP No. 3 is dismissed as learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant has given written statement placed on record that complainant does not want any relief against the OP No. 3. The OP Nos. l and 2 will comply this order within a period of forty -five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. With these directions, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The office will send copy of this order to the parties free of cost, strictly as per rules forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room."
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the OPs submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as according to him vehicle was 2000 model and had been sold as such. This was so reflected in the sale certificate i.e. in Form No. 21 issued at the time of sale, copy whereof is Annexure A -2 and has been shown as such in the registration certificate Annexure A -3, wherein month and year is shown as 4/2000. Further according to OPs, there was no unfair trade practice committed by them while the Tata Indica Car was sold by OP No. 2 to the appellant.
With a view to support his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit along with photographs of the vehicle in question with code bars inside the doors of the vehicle which specifically mentioned that Indica Car was of 1.8.1999. These are 4 photographs and negatives of these photographs are also there. To controvert this evidence OP No. l filed affidavit of one Mr. M.S. Pradeep, its law officer. Stand as set out in this reply is reiterated by the said OPs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.