TELCO Vs. HARDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein, Telco, presently Tata Motors which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition assailing the Judgement and Order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission), Punjab in Appeal No. 74/2002 whereby State Commission, has upheld the Order of the District Forum, directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.61,691 within one month failing which to pay interest @ 12% till the date of payment.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are: Complainant-Respondent purchased a truck bearing Chasis No.373011 FOQ 711398, Engine No.697 D 22-FQQ 743452 on 30.6.1999 from Indra Auto Sales Ltd., authorized dealer of the Petitioner. Dealer has not been made a party-respondent. On 3rd May, 2000 when the driver employed by the Respondent was carrying bags of malt from Mallout to Kathmandu the rear axle of the truck broke down from both sides at Gopal Ganj, Bihar. According to the Petitioner, though the cause of breakdown of the axle was due to overloading of the truck and also due to tampering with the vehicle to increase the load carrying capacity, Petitioner replaced the axle free of cost. Not satisfied with the replacement of the axle, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short, the District Forum) claiming an amount of Rs.1,85,191/- on account of damage of the truck, replacement of the parts, repairs etc and also due to the halting of the truck in working along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of occurrence till the date of final payment along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(3.) Petitioner, on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement, inter alia, contending that the Respondent herein was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as he was a professional transporter through Truck Union Patiala. It was also contended that after having signed the satisfaction note dated 2.7.99, Respondent was estopped under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act from raising any claim against Petitioner. It was also contended that in view of clause 5 and 6 of the warranty terms and conditions the complaint was not maintainable. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.69, 690/- by way of compensation break up of which is - Rs.12600/- spent on repair of the truck at Gopal Ganj so as to bring it to Patiala, Rs.18,500 for engaging another vehicle from Patiala to Kathmandu on account of breaking down of the truck of the complainant, Rs.591/- spent on FAX and telephone expenses, Rs.20,000/- on account of non-use of vehicle from 19.5.2000 to 10.7.2000 and delay in the repair of the vehicle, Rs.10,000/- on account of inconvenience, mental torture, agony and harassment.