TATA MOTORS LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE AT RENE TOWER, 3RD FLOOR, 1842, RAJDANGA MAIN ROAD, P.S. KASBA, KOLKATA Vs. SANDIP BASU & ANR. S/O. LATE SACHIDRANATH BASU, R/O. NEW CIRCULAR LANE, P.S. KOTOWALI, P.O. & DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was listed today before Bench No.5. However, as the said Bench not in session today, on being mentioned, we have taken it up.

(2.) This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act), has been filed by Tata Motors Ltd., being the Manufacturer of the vehicle in question and Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, against the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/1249/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone a delay of 91 days in filing of the Appeal by the Petitioner and has consequently dismissed the Appeal.

(3.) The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner herein against the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalpaiguri (for short "the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. CC/112/2013. By the said order, the District Forum, while dismissing the Complaint against Petitioners Dealer, Opposite Party No.1, proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner and allowed the Complaint qua it. The District Forum directed the Petitioner to either (i) take back the vehicle in question from the Complainant at its own expenses, rectify the defect complained of, viz., high consumption of fuel, return the same to him within a period of 30 days or (ii) replace the vehicle with a new one within the said period or (iii) pay the price of the vehicle, including the tax etc., within the aforesaid period, with a default stipulation of interest @ 8% p.a. till realisation in the event of Petitioner opting for refund of price of the vehicle. The District Forum had also directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 as compensation for mental pain, harassment, agony etc. along with a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as litigation costs, with further default clause in the form of interest @ 8% per annum till realization. These directions came to be made as the District Forum had come to the conclusion that being the Manufacturer of the vehicle in question, the Petitioner was solely responsible for the sale of defective car to the Complainant, inasmuch as its fuel consumption was much more than what was publicized at the time of its sale, and despite Complainants repeated requests through the Dealer, his grievance was not redressed by the Petitioner; and, therefore, the Petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practise, as alleged by the Complainant.