Telco vs HARDIP SINGH

PETITIONER herein, Telco, presently Tata Motors which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition assailing the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission), Punjab in Appeal No. 74/2002 whereby State Commission, has upheld the Order of the District Forum, directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 61,691 within one month failing which to pay interest @ 12% till the date of payment.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are: Complainant-Respondent purchased a truck bearing Chassis No. 373011 FOQ 711398, Engine No. 697 D 22-FQQ 743452 on 30.6.1999 from Indra Auto Sales Ltd., Authorized dealer of the Petitioner. Dealer has not been made a party-respondent. On 3rd May, 2000 when the driver employed by the Respondent was carrying bags of malt from Mallout to Kathmandu the rear axle of the truck broke down from both sides at Gopal Ganj, Bihar. According to the Petitioner, though the cause of breakdown of the axle was due to overloading of the truck and also due to tampering with the vehicle to increase the load carrying capacity, Petitioner replaced the axle free of cost. Not satisfied with the replacement of the axle, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short, the District Forum) claiming an amount of Rs. 1,85,191 on account of damage of the truck, replacement of the parts, repairs, etc. and also due to the halting of the truck in working along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of occurrence till the date of final payment along with a sum of Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment.

PETITIONER, on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement, inter alia, contending that the Respondent herein was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1 )(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as he was a professional transporter through Truck Union, Patiala. It was also contended that after having signed the satisfaction note dated 2.7.1999, Respondent was estopped under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act from raising any claim against Petitioner. It was also contended that in view of Clauses 5 and 6 of the warranty terms and conditions the complaint was not maintainable. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 69,690 by way of compensation break up of which is -Rs. 12,600 spent on repair of the truck at Gopal Ganj so as to bring it to Patiala, Rs. 18,500 for engaging another vehicle from Patiala to Kathmandu on account of breaking down of the truck of the complainant, Rs. 591 spent on FAX and telephone expenses, Rs. 20,000 on account of non-use of vehicle from 19.5.2000 to 10.7.2000 and delay in the repair of the vehicle, Rs. 10,000 on account of inconvenience, mental torture, agony and harassment.

PETITIONER, being aggrieved of the Order of the District Forum filed appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned Order.

AGGRIEVED by the Order of the State Commission, this Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that in any case, Respondent had failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the truck. That though the axle of the truck broke down due to the overloading of the truck and tampering with the vehicle to increase the load carrying capacity, Petitioner had replaced the axle free of cost. That since the broken part i.e. axle had already been replaced by the petitioner free of cost and Respondent had signed the satisfaction note on 2nd July, 1999, the complaint filed by the Respondent was not maintainable. As against this, Counsel for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded by the Fora below for the reasons stated in the Orders passed. Counsel for the parties had been heard at length.

UNDER the Consumer Protection Act compensation or damages can be awarded, only if Complainant has suffered loss or damages due to negligence of the manufacturer or service provider. There is no findings recorded in the orders passed by the Fora below that the breakdown of the rear axle was on account of manufacturing defect. Onus to prove that there was any manufacturing defect was on the Respondent which he failed to discharge by leading any evidence. Respondent failed to show that the problem in the vehicle was inherent in nature because of which vehicle could not run. The vehicle was running satisfactorily from the date of purchase i.e. 30th June, 1999 to 3rd of May, 2000 when the rear axle broke down from both sides. Merely breaking of the axle does not prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The dealer/manufacturer is liable to replace any defective parts of the vehicle within the warranty period. According to the Petitioner axle broke down due to overloading and tampering with the vehicle to increase load carrying capacity, Petitioner replaced the axle free of costs. Even if the axle was defective, the same was replaced by the Petitioner free of cost. Petitioner could not be asked to reimburse Rs. 18,500 for engaging another vehicle from Patiala to Kathmandu on account of breaking down of the truck of the complainant, Rs. 591 spent on FAX and telephone expenses, Rs. 20,000 on account of non-use of vehicle from 19.5.2000 to 10.7.2000. Respondent was not entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 12,600 on account of repair of the truck as well. Under the warranty the Respondent-Petitioner was liable to replace the defective parts, if any, and not for payment of any other loss, which may have occurred to the Complainant.

IN our opinion, the Fora below have completely erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 61,691 to the Complainant under different heads enumerated in the forgoing paragraphs. Apart from this, after replacement of the axle, Respondent had signed satisfaction note dated 2.7.1999. Having signed the satisfaction note, the complaint filed by the Respondent claiming compensation was not maintainable.

FOR the reasons stated above, Revision Petition is allowed and the Orders passed by the Fora below are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

AMOUNT deposited, if any, by the Petitioner be refunded along with accrued interest thereon, if any. Revision Petition allowed.