VIPUL MOTORS PVT. LTD Vs. PADMINI JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 16/11/2016 in First Appeal No. 791 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, the 'State Commission') dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 29.04.2016of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 373 of 2014. This order will also dispose off revision petition nos. 444 of 2017 and 445 of 2017 which arise from the same order in view of the facts being the same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from RP 443 of 2017.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the respondent booked a Maruti Gypsy vehicle of Harvest Green colour with its Sawai Madhopur branch on 10/2/2014 by depositing Rs.10,000.00. As the vehicle was not available in this colour, its production having been discontinued by respondent no. 2, the petitioner after seeking some time to supply the vehicle cancelled the booking on 25/8/2014 and refunded the booking amount vide cheque dtd. 22/8/2014 and cancelled the booking. However, this cheque was not encashed by the respondent no.1 who approached the District Forum by way of complainant which allowed the complaint on contest after notice, and held the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service and awarded the respondent Rs.10,000.00, the booking amount, Rs.1,00,000.00 towards mental agony and financial loss and Rs.5,000.00 as costs to be paid within 3 months of the order. The petitioner's appeal before the State Commission was dismissed in view of its order in Appeal No. 652 of 2016 in Manager, Apra Auto (india) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sikarwar which related to the same matter. The petitioner assails this order by way of this revision petition on the ground that the booking was done for a commercial purpose by the respondent as multiple bookings were made by the respondent and her family members with the objective of using the vehicle for a commercial purpose of deploying it in the Ranthambore National Park and therefore she was not a 'consumer' under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. The fact of booking a total of 7 similar vehicles has been highlighted by the petitioner to argue that the petitioner is not a 'consumer' and that as per Hon"ble Supreme Courts judgments in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, Civil Appeal No. 4193 of 1995 decided on 4/4/1995, (1995) 3 SCC 583 the respondent had not established that the vehicle was required for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., CA No. 994 of 1972 decided on 27/10/1993 that a person whose case is built on falsehood has no right to approach the court and that he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. Reliance was also placed on this Commission's order in Raghunandan Joshi (through LRs) and Ors. Vs. Manager, Bhatia and Co. and Anr., in CC No. 237 of 2018 dtd. 20/9/2018 which concerned a similar issue by the husband of the respondent in the instant case and the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal by the Dealer of Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd (respondent 2 herein) was set aside.

(3.) Respondent no. 1 argued that the present petitions related to booking of one vehicle each and therefore the issue of 7 bookings was not relevant. It was argued that the petitioner was a 'consumer' within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act as the vehicle was booked to be deployed in the Ranthambhore National Park and the petitioner after booking the vehicle kept delaying the delivery and finally cancelled the booking on the ground that the vehicle was not available in the colour Harvest Green. According to the respondent, the delay prevented her from registering her vehicle with the Park authorities and to a loss of earning of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the season. It is argued that the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the order of the District Forum or the State Commission and has instead argued on other issues which are not germane to the present case. It is argued that one Mahaveer Prasad Sharma was sold a Gypsy of the Harvest Green colour on 2/7/2014 and therefore, the vehicles were available.