Karan Pal Singh vs Rajiv Automobiles

ON account of having sold not only a defective scooter but also having put up a false claim as to the average mileage of the scooter, the appellant who is the consumer had filed the complaint, and vide impugned Order dated 7.7.2005, the District Forum awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,000 apart from Rs. 750 paid by the appellant to AAUI as per directions of the District Forum, besides Rs. 2,500 towards compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation as well as the refusal by the District Forum to remove the defects, the appellant has preferred this appeal

A perusal of the impugned order shows that there was serious dispute as to the average of the scooter. According to the respondents'' claim the average was 74 kms. But it was sent to an expert by the District Forum and the report of the expert showed the average mileage per litre was 44 kms. Any such claim comes within the unfair trade practice by way of misleading and misrepresentation as to the quality as well as performance of a particular product or vehicle. Admittedly, it was a new model four stroke scooter. When the respondent used it the average came only to 34 kms. per lire. It was due to manufacturing defects in the scooter that the appellant suffered huge loss not only due to low performance with regard to gear problem as well as other problems. When the appellant asked for refund of the cost it was not acceded to by the respondents. Consequently the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.

The report of AAUI (Automobile Association of Upper India) was assailed by the respondent on the premise that the average is lower on account of various hindrances on the road such as rush hour traffic, red lights, change of gear, etc. However, this plea did not find favour with the District Forum as the average was arrived at by AAUI on the basis of trial on highway/main road.

WE have come across large number of cases where false and tall claims are being made by the manufacturers as to the average of the vehicle and thereby the poor gullible consumers are prompted to purchase the vehicles but when they bring it on road, they find the average is not as claimed or promised by the manufacturers. When the manufacturers are confronted with the problem, they say that this average is attained on highways under ideal road conditions. WE have taken a view that whenever any manufacturer sells his goods by claiming average of say 70 kms. or some other quality of goods; it has to keep it in mind the consumers or the area they are targeting. If they know that there are no ideal conditions on the roads of Delhi or any particular region, they should not have made such claims as it is misleading, alluring, deceptive and unfair. However, taking overall view of the matter and since the manufacturer has stopped production of the vehicle in question; we deem that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was peanuts as compared to the mental agony, harassment, financial loss suffered by the appellant.

THE Supreme Court has taken a view in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161=(2004) 5 SCC 65, that compensation should include each and every element of suffering. THE observations of the Supreme Court in the said case are as under: "THE word ''compensation'' is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. THE provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. THE Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. THE Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law." Even if we take that there was no manufacturing defect in the scooter but the misleading claims and misrepresentation of such a magnitude and the resultant mental agony, harassment suffered every day by the appellant and the cost and recurring loss whenever he used the scooter, persuade us to award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,000 (fifteen thousand only). Appeal is allowed in above terms. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

A copy of order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.

FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt. Appeal partly allowed.