Decided on June 17,2020

D.D.Industries Ltd Appellant
Ravinderjeet Singh Respondents


Prem Narain, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner D.D. Industries Ltd. against the order dated 04.01.2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.763 of 2006.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent gave his diesel bus to the petitioner for converting it to a CNG based engine. The agreement was for handing over the bus in 10 days. After conversion, the bus was delivered with a delay of 17 days. The bus did not function properly and the same was brought back to the petitioner for removing the defects which were noted after 4 - 5 days. The defects were removed, however, the defects again developed and the bus was again brought to the petitioner for repairs. This happened 3-4 times and therefore, the respondent could not make use of the bus for earning his livelihood. The respondent/complainant has filed consumer complaint bearing No.306/05 for deficiency on the part of the petitioner before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 29.8.2005 passed the following order:- "We order that OP shall hand over the bus to the complainant, defect free and in good condition within 60 days of this order. We also order that the complainant shall pay the balance amount of Rs.3 Lacs to the OP at the time of taking delivery of the bus. Complainant cannot get delivery of the bus without paying the balance of Rs.3 lacs as it is he and not the OP who had to arrange the balance amount. OP was only a facilitator for loan. Parties, are however, let to bear their own costs."
(3.) Complainant preferred appeal bearing No.763 of 2006 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 04.01.2007 allowed the appeal and passed the following order:- "22. It is not necessary that to prove deficiency in service or the defects in the goods expert opinion should be obtained. Even the circumstances are sufficient to raise the inference and arrive at a conclusion. It is only in respect of those defects in the goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis where test of the goods are done after obtaining a sample of the goods, and sealing and referring the sample to the appropriate laboratory that expert opinion may be required in terms of Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Ordinarily, as contemplated by Sec. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Forum can proceed to settle the consumer dispute on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the parties. In the instant case, there was no need for expert opinion. In this case, things speak for themselves. Since the bus has been detained by the respondent for such a long period, we feel inclined to award compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per day, firstly for 17 days delay in completing the job; and secondly, for 6 days; and thirdly for another 17 days. In total the compensation amount comes to Rs.80,000/-. Besides this, we award Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation for mental agony and physical harassment. 23. There are dues of Rs.3 lacs and, in our view, the respondent unauthorisedly detained the bus by not arranging the loan from its own bankers inspite of having obtained sanction therefor and, as this detention is of its own creation, we direct the respondent to return the bus against the payment of Rs.2 lacs by the appellant after adjusting the aforesaid compensation amount. 24. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.";

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