TATA MOTORS LTD. vs RAJESHWAR DUTTA & ANR.

This Revision Petition, by Tata Motors Ltd., the Manufacturer of the vehicle in question, namely, Manza Aura Safire Car, is directed against the order dated 12.05.2016, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 38 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the order dated 07.12.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 381 of 2001, preferred by the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein, has enhanced the compensation from 25,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum, to 3,17,000/-, observing thus: "13. A motor vehicle suffers depreciation in value to the extent of forty percent, for insurance purpose, over a period of five years. Vehicle was purchased for 5,31,412/-. Forty percent of this amount come to 2,12,000/-, approximately. For the vehicle, being not available to the appellant for use, for a period of more than three years, at a stretch, and for short periods, even prior to that, he deserves to be suitably compensated. We have been told that appellant is a Government servant, working as Superintendent in the Education Department of State. A central Government employee of the rank of Superintendent, is paid monthly conveyance allowance of 2,000/-. We adopt this future to work out the compensation, payable to the appellant, on account of vehicle being not available for his use. By multiplying this figure with forty months, the amount payable comes to 80,000/-. In addition, the appellant is entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment. Compensation of 25,000/-, on this score, seems to be reasonable and sufficient."

It is pertinent to note at this juncture itself that the finding of the District Forum to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Dealer as well as the Manufacturer, the Petitioner herein, on account of the defects in the afore-noted vehicle, was not challenged either by the Dealer or the Manufacturer, and, hence, the said finding has attained finality qua both of them. It was only the Complainant, who, being not satisfied with the relief granted, had carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the Revision Petition.

The main thrust of the arguments addressed by Mr. Aditya Narain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that enhancement of compensation by the State Commission from 25,000/- to 3,17,000/- is without any basis. Learned has also attempted to raise the point that in fact the Complainant was not even entitled to free repairs of the alleged defects, as the vehicle had been brought to the Dealer''s workshop for repairs after the expiry of the warranty period of 24 months.

Regard being had to: the fact that neither the Manufacturer nor the Dealer had questioned the correctness of the concurrent finding of fact relating to the defects in the vehicle; the vehicle is lying with the Dealer since 2012; and the afore-extracted observations by the State Commission, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.