AMARJEET KAUR Vs. ATUL AUTO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three revision petitions as detailed in the headnote have been filed against three separate orders, all dated 25.01.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the 'State Commission') in FA No. 988/2009, "Amarjeet Kaur versus Atul Auto Limited & Ors.", FA No. 919/2009, "Rajinder Pal versus Atul Auto Limited & Ors.", FA No. 949/2009, "Darshan Pal versus Atul Auto Limited & Ors.", vide which, while allowing appeals, the three orders passed by the District Forum Patiala, all dated 25.11.2008 were set aside and complaint no. 133 of 5.04.2007 filed by Amarjeet Kaur, complaint no. 191 of 15.05.2007 filed by Rajinder Pal and complaint no. 199 of 17.05.2007 filed by Darshan Pal, were allowed. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the three cases are almost similar, this single order shall dispose of these three revision petitions and a copy of the same be placed on each file.

(2.) The brief facts of these cases are that in each of these three cases, the complainant purchased a three-wheeler auto-rikshaw from respondent no. 2, Manglam Auto in the months of July / August 2006. The respondent no. 1, Atul Auto is stated to be the manufacturer of these vehicles. The vehicles were financed by respondent no. 4, Khushbu Auto Finance Ltd. and there is a hire-purchase agreement with respondent no. 3, HDFC Bank Ltd. It has been stated in each of three complaints that just two to three months after the purchase of the vehicle, it developed some fault in the engine. The complainants took the vehicles to respondent no. 2, who told them that the engine of the vehicles had ceased. The respondent no. 2 asked them to leave the vehicle with them and promised that he shall replace the engine after getting the same from Gujarat and he charged a sum of Rs.1,522/- from them as fare. The vehicle was returned after 12 days with changed engine. However, after one or two months, the engine of the vehicle again developed problem and it was again taken to respondent no. 2, who promised that he shall replace the engine again. The vehicle was again returned after putting some old engine, but the vehicle again developed problem after some time. This time, when the vehicle was taken to respondent no. 2 and it was requested that the engine should be replaced and defects should be removed, the respondent no. 2 replied that nothing could be done, since there was a major defect in the engine. In the case of Rajinder Pal and Darshan Pal, it has been stated that a sum of Rs.1522/- as fare was charged from them by respondent no. 2 second time as well, but no receipt was issued for having received the amount of Rs.1522/- on both the occasions. The three complainants then filed complaints before the District Forum and the said Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant had not been able to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and hence the complaints were ordered to be dismissed. It was also observed that the warranty period of nine months had already expired. Hence the OPs were not responsible for removing the defects of the vehicle. Appeals were filed against the orders of the District Forum which were accepted by the State Commission and as per orders passed on 25.1.2011 in all three cases, the orders passed by the District Forum were set aside and respondent no. 1 & 2 were directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner/appellant and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. It was also stated that since the vehicle in question, were on hire-purchase agreement with respondent no. 3, HDFC Bank and were financed by respondent no. 4, Khushbu Auto Finance Limited, the said amount of compensation should be given to respondent no. 3 & 4 for adjusting towards the payment of instalment of the vehicles, in question. The petitioners/complainants have filed the present petitions saying that the order of the State Commission should be set aside and they should be allowed a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent no. 1 & 2 for the cost of the vehicle, mental pain / agony, advocate fees, parking fee, loss of rent etc.

(3.) At the time of admission hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the facts and circumstances of the case made it clear that the petitioners had suffered a lot on account of the fault of respondent no. 1 & 2. It was a clear cut case of deficiency in service as well, because the manufacturing defects in the vehicles had been there since the beginning and had caused lot of mental pain/agony to the petitioners. The revision petitions should, therefore, be accepted and the relief claimed be awarded to the petitioners.