RAJNEESH BANSAL Vs. PASCO AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No.1-M/s. Pasco Automobiles had told the appellant in case no catalytic convertor was fitted in the area when a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards its price would be adjusted in the final payment of the car. He has further contended that the manufacturer-M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon respondent No.2 have provided catalytic convertor in the vehicle manufactured by it which are required to be sold and plied in four metropolitan cities of India which at that time did not include Chandigarh. According to the contention of Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, the catalytic convertor was provided in the car for the use of unleaded petrol but at the time when the car was purchased, unleaded petrol was not being supplied in Chandigarh. The appellant paid the full price of the Maruti car which did not have the said part i. e. , catalytic convertor fitted in it. The respondent No.1 M/s. Pasco Automobiles did not refund the sum of Rs.7,500/- nor adjusted the same in the final price of the car deposited by the appellant, hence the appellant filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] which has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant/complainant has failed to produce independent evidence on the point that the Maruti car fitted with catalytic convertor was valued at a higher amount than the Maruti car without it and on its basis, the finding was recorded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. The second grouse of the complainant regarding the delayed delivery of the car was also repelled on the ground that the complainant had failed to place on record copy of the circular/notice published by the Maruti Udyog Limited and had failed to lead reliable and independent evidence to show that the Maruti car purchased by the complainant falls in the list in which the faulty/defective steering pinions have been fitted.

(2.) We have carefully perused the finding recorded by the District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh. In our considered opinion, both the alleged deficiencies in service relate to the factual controversy in which the instant case has been highly disputed by the respondents. The District Forum-II in our view could not settle the factual controversy in exercise of summary jurisdiction under the C. P. Act. The appellant is required to lead complete evidence in support of his two grounds urged in the complaint and the same can appropriately and adequately be considered by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Faced with such a situation, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant may approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking redressal of his grievance and sought our permission for withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly we accept the said prayer and hold that the complaint could not be appropriately decided in exercise of summary jurisdiction as a consumer dispute as the complaint involved disputed questions of fact which could be settled by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The order of the District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh is accordingly modified and the appeal is allowed to be decided as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by filing an appropriate civil suit. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges.