HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. SHAMBHU SHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 18. 10. 2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jharkhand, Ranchi dismissing appeal against the order dated 28. 5. 2002 of a District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed with direction to the petitioner to replace the full engine of the trekker or pay its cost, pay interest on the loan taken against the trekker to the bank w. e. f. 9. 7. 1999 and further pay Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation to Shambhu Sharan Singh and Uma Sharan Singh arrayed collectively as respondent No. 1 in the revision petition.

(2.) FOR deciding the controversy which we will refer hereinafter only few facts need to be noticed. Under the Prime Minister's Rozgar Yozana, the respondent No. 1 purchased a trekker through Bank of Baroda, Bokaro from Chandan Motors, Dhanbad on 29. 9. 1998. Half of the engine of trekker was replaced by the petitioner on 17. 3. 1999. At the time of that replacement the warranty period was also extended by another six months. Respondent No. 1 alleged that trekker started consuming more mobile from 7. 7. 1999 for which intimation was sent to respondent No. 2, dealer of the petitioner by the letter dated 9. 7. 1999. Within the extended warranty period, Chakka ring of the trekker was not replaced. Respondent No. 1 being unemployed and trekker being not in working condition, were unable to pay the dues of the bank. Complaint seeking certain reliefs filed by respondent No. 1 was contested by filing written version by the petitioner on a variety of grounds which need not to be referred to here.

(3.) BY the order dated 11. 2. 2003, notice in revision was ordered to be issued only on the point of quantum of relief and operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 as ordered by Fora below. Amount of Rs. 20,000 had been paid through a demand draft dated 25. 10. 2003 by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. On 3. 8. 2006, Mr. Lalit Bhasin for petitioner made the statement that petitioner is ready to replace the full engine but respondent No. 1 stated that he is not interested in getting the engine replaced. In view of the statement made on 3. 8. 2006 and Rs. 20,000 towards compensation having been paid to respondent No. 1, Mr. Bhasin, presses this revision only in regard to the direction for payment of interest on the loan of bank from 9. 7. 1999 by the petitioner. Liability of interest since 1999 upto 31st July, 2006 has swelled upto Rs. 4,43,213 as is evident from the letter dated 26. 7. 2006 of the bank filed during argument by respondent No. 1. It was urged on behalf of petitioner that half of the engine of trekker was replaced on 17. 3. 1999. Respondent No. 1 who wanted replacement of full engine on ground of engine consuming more mobile since 7. 7. 1999, had not led evidence of any automobile engineer that more consumption of mobile was as a result of any manufacturing defect in the engine and the trekker stopped running completely as alleged. According to the learned Counsel, in absence of evidence to that effect the Fora below had acted with material irregularity in directing the petitioner to pay interest on loan amount w. e. f. 9. 7. 1999 on bald assertion of respondent No. 1 about their being unable to earn money by plying the trekker. There is considerable merit in this submission. Manufacturing defect in half engine which was replaced on 17. 3. 1999 has no relevance as regards award of interest for subsequent period from 9. 7. 1999. Further, in absence of evidence of automobile engineer to the said effect merely on basis of direction for replacement of full engine as given by the District Forum and affirmed by State Commission which the petitioner undertook to comply on 3. 8. 2006 the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any interest on loan amount from the petitioner and the orders passed by Fora below to that extent deserve to be set aside being not legally sustainable.