FORCE MOTORS LIMITED Vs. SWARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No.1682 of 2015 (RP) challenges the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short, 'the State Commission') dated 06.04.2015. Vide this order, F.A. No.725 of 2011 challenging the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short, 'the District Forum') dated 14.03.2011 had been partly allowed. The District Forum, in its turn, had partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner/OP2-M/s Force Motors Limited (OP2 hereafter) to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order. On appeal, the State Commission, vide the impugned order, had raised the amount of compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.60,000/-, with interest @ 8% from the date of complaint till actual payment. Cost of litigation was also increased from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) Very briefly, the facts are that Shri Swaranjit Singh, respondent no.1/complainant (complainant hereafter) had purchased Traveller E-II, 12/15 seater vehicle from OP1-M/s. Gurvir Motors (P) Ltd. on 09.01.2010 for Rs.7,79,675/-, to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment. The said vehicle began to give trouble from day one: problems of bubbling/vibrating while driving which increased gradually. Complainant took the vehicle to OP1-M/s. Gurvir Motors (P) Ltd.: defect was found in Crown Wheel Pinion and was replaced free of cost. Again, just after about 750 KM, the same problem repeated in the Crown Wheel Pinion. In this period, power steering also gave problems when the vehicle was taken to hilly areas. This problem too was brought to the notice of OP1 who advised repair from a Chandigarh Workshop. This was done. Thereafter, locks of all the doors became defective: doors started opening automatically while the vehicle was on road. Once again, the complainant approached OP1 and locks were replaced. Still further, the alternator was defective. Coolant used to leak, temperature of the vehicle used to go up. OP1 repaired the alternator a number of times. The cooling system of the air conditioner did not work satisfactorily and so on. The essential point in the complaint was that the vehicle gave trouble from the word go, after it's purchase, suggesting manufacturing defect; the relief sought in the consumer complaint was a full refund of the sum paid for the vehicle, with associated costs such as insurance etc., and compensation for mental tension, loss of business etc.

(3.) The District Forum, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, decided the matter in favour of the complainant. The relevant portion of the order is as under: