ALOK SINHA vs Anand Mahindra And Ors.

THIS compliant has been filed by the complainant against Opposite Parties.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant is an esteemed Advocate of Supreme Court and President of Bhartiya Society, who purchased Mahindra Rexton Luxury car on 9.12.2013 from OP No. 2, who is also dealer of OP No. 1 and 3 for a consideration of Rs. 21,39,967/ - out of which, Rs. 8,20,000/ - were paid by cheque and rest of the amount was paid by loan account of State Bank of India. After 15 days of purchase, complainant found that vehicle suffers from certain electronic malfunctions and other defects and on several occasions car got locked automatically when the complainant stepped out of it, even though the engine was on. It was further submitted that vehicle sent for repairs on 25.12.2014, was returned after repairs, but problem remained as it is which was rectified by service center after much difficulty. Later on, there was problem with car''s battery. It was sent for repairs again on 15.1.2014 and 2.2.2014 and car was returned to the complainant with the remark that the battery gets discharged because of plugging in the fridge/cooling system in the vehicle. On 25.2.2014, complainant tried to unlock his car by using the remote key, but it did not open and the car was opened manually but as soon as the car was opened manually, the tail lights of the car started blinking continuously which continued in night also without even pressing any remote key. Bluetooth was also not functioning properly. It was further stated that vehicle''s wheel alignment was also done for which Rs. 1500/ - were charged by service center. It was further submitted that on 5.9.2014, when complainant was on business trip to Jaipur some new electronic defect cropped up in the vehicle and car''s display panel started showing a balloon like symbol and there was risk of air bag of the car opening up. Due to this defect, complainant under constant fear and tension returned back while driving the car. It was further submitted that on 22.10.2014, complainant went to Shimla with his family and some electronic defect occurred. On 6.1.2015, there was some problem with the brakes or brake oil. In March, 2015, vehicle''s display panel again started showing air bag symbol. It was further submitted that complainant had purchased such a costly and luxury car, quality of luxury and tension free life from car was expected. It was further submitted that complainant is a high profile person who remains so tied up with social and legal work that this kind of insecurity and mental tension causes irreparable loss to him. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant prayed for replacement of car with a new car or refund of entire amount with interest and further claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ -. Heard complainant in person and perused record.

LEARNED complainant submitted that on account of being Advocate of Supreme Court he has claimed Rs. 2,00,00,000/ - as compensation on account of number of defects in the vehicle which caused risk to his life; hence, complaint be admitted and notice be issued to the opposite parties.

COMPLAINANT has pointed out certain defects in the vehicle purchased for Rs. 21,39,967/ - and has claimed replacement of the vehicle or refund of price with interest. Along with this prayer, he has also claimed Rs. 2,00,00,000/ - as compensation. Complainant has not given any reason for claiming so much compensation except of the fact that he is an Advocate of Supreme Court. Merely because a person is practicing in the Supreme Court he cannot claim compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ - without any supporting documents. He has not even filed his income tax returns or documents depicting fees charged by him from his clients which could have shown that he was of such a status and earning that he can claim Rs. 2,00,00,000/ - as compensation on account of mental tension while travelling in the car purchased from OP No. 2. Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act enables National Commission to entertain complaints where compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,000/ -. As per aforesaid discussion, complainant has not placed any document on record to substantiate prima facie case for claiming compensation of more than Rs. 1,00,00,000/ - and in such circumstances, complaint is not maintainable before National Commission and he should have filed complaint before appropriate Forum, i.e. State Commission, as price of the vehicle purchased was Rs. 21,39,967/ -. Even if complainant feels that he can claim and prove claim of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ - which requires elaborate evidence, he should approach to Civil Court.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that for want of pecuniary jurisdiction this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate forum/civil court for redressal of his grievances.