JASWANT SINGH Vs. MALWA AUTOMOBILES P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Jaswant Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') has filed R.P. Nos. 2777/07 and 2778/07 and M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 1') has filed R.P. No. 4057/07 being aggrieved by the single order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal Nos. A-269/2004 and A-501/2004. Since the parties and facts in these revision petitions are the same, we propose to dispose them of with a common order by taking the facts from R.P. No. 2778 of 2007.

(2.) The Petitioner in his complaint before the District Forum had stated that he had purchased a brand new Tata Indica Car (Model 2002) manufactured by Respondent No. 1, for a sum of Rs. 2,71,040 from its dealer, M/s. Malwa Automobiles (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 2'). Soon after the delivery of the vehicle, it developed mechanical problems and the Petitioner, therefore, approached Respondent No. 1 to rectify the same. It was revealed later that the vehicle that he had purchased was not a brand new one manufactured in 2002 as assured by Respondent No. 2 but was manufactured in 2000. This was apparent from the Chassis No. 600232FZZP33595 wherein the Code FZZP stands for the year 2000 and not for 2002. However, all the invoices and other documents given by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner deceitfully showed the year of manufacture of the said Car as 2002 instead of 2000. When confronted with this, Respondent No. 2 refused to entertain the Petitioner's genuine grievance and, therefore, he approached Respondent No. 1 i.e. the manufacturer and there also he could not get any redressal. Further, Respondent No. 1 was also not able to rectify the defects in the running of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the negligence and callous approach of both Respondents, Petitioner issued legal notices to them with no avail except for some false assurances. Therefore, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and request that the Respondents be directed to pay the Petitioner the entire amount paid by him for purchase of the car, Rs. 2 lakh for mental pain and agony along with interest @ 24% per annum.

(3.) The above contentions of the Petitioner were denied by Respondents. According to Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner never came to his showroom and only a broker came to purchase the vehicle and that too after making a part-payment. Further, no facts were concealed by the Respondent from the Petitioner and from the Chassis number which was stated in the invoice, it was clear that the vehicle was not manufactured in 2002. It was further stated that the prevalent market price of the vehicle in question at the time of its purchase was Rs. 3,22,192, but the Petitioner was given a discount of Rs. 51,152 since the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2000. Respondent No. 1 who also denied Petitioner's allegations stated that it had never concealed from Respondent No. 2, the dealer, that the vehicle was manufactured in 2000. In fact, a circular had been issued by Respondent No. 1 where it was specifically mentioned that these old cars are being disposed of and special discounts are being given along with the price list showing the difference between the cars manufactured in the year 2002 and 2002. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 as a manufacturer was not guilty of any deficiency of service. The responsibility if any lay with the Respondent No. 2 who is not an agent of Respondent No. 1. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by holding both the Respondents guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed that Respondents jointly and severally return the entire amount of Rs. 2,71,040 to the Petitioner after taking back the vehicle in question, Rs. 50,000 as compensation was awarded on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost. The District Forum further directed that in order to eliminate the possibility of such unfair trade practice by the Respondents and in the interest of the consumer, Respondent No. 1(manufacturer) will fix a plate beneath the bonnet of every car giving the year of manufacturing in place of the code numbers and similar information should also be specifically stated in the invoice issued by dealers to customers.