VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA vs South City Motors Ltd.

THE complainant in this case who is petitioner herein, purchased a Ford Icon 1.6 Sxi Oyster Silver car from the respondent/OP Co. for a total sum of Rs.6,83,734/- against which the OP offered a discount amounting to Rs.98,339/- leaving a net amount payable by the complainant for the purchase of a car to Rs.5,85,395/-. Out of this amount, the payment was made partly by the complainant himself and partly through a loan of Rs.3 lakhs taken by the complainant from the OP Co., which was repayable in Equal Monthly Installment. In view of various grievances pertaining to the car purchased as also the registration certificate of the car, the complainant was constrained to lodge a consumer complaint with the District Forum praying for issuance of the following directions:- (i) Deliver a new Car of 2004 model/manufactured of Ford Ikon 1.6 Sxi Oyster Silver and take back the 2003 model/manufactured car laying with the complainant, or pay Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) to the complainant, which is the loss suffered by the complainant and as quantified by the opposite party/respondent no.1 themselves in their reply dated 15th July 2004.

(ii) Deliver the corrected Registration Certificate of Ford Ikon 1.6 Sxi Oyster Silver bearing Registration No.DL8C J 8172, wherein the name of the Complainant has been corrected from Vijay Sharma to Vijay Kumar Sharma. (iii) Deliver the Extended Warranty Book of Ford Ikon 1.6 Sxi Oyster Silver bearing Registration No.DL8C J 8172. (iv) Pay Rs.3,770/- (Rupees three thousand seven hundred and seventy only) to the complainant by way of excess amount collected by the opposite party/respondent no.1.

(v) Pay as compensation Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant for the mental torture and harassment of the complainant because of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services of the opposite part/respondent no.1. (vi) To pay costs of this litigation/complaint.

ON being noticed by the District Forum, the OP Co. appeared and contested the matter opposing the complaint against it. ON appraisal of the issues and examination of the record and the evidence advanced by the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint by its order dated 15.12.2006 by which following reliefs were granted to the complainant:- 1. The opposite party will refund an amount of Rs.3770/- to the complainant being the balance amount out of total refund of Rs.12720/- after adjustment of Rs.8950/- deducted towards extension of warranty period.

The opposite party will get the name of the complainant corrected in the registration book as desired by the complainant and all the expenses to get the name corrected shall be born by the opposite party and the complainant shall assist fully with the opposite party in this respect in getting the needful done from the registering authorities. Correction in the name shall be got done by the opposite party as soon as the complainant approaches to the opposite party and make request for the same in writing.

3.The opposite party shall hand over the extended warranty documents to the complainant within one week of receipt of this order by the opposite party. 4. As there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in respect of year of manufacture of the car, which was handed over to the complainant, as such, there is no order against the opposite party in this regard.

The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of part deficiency in services and for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant. The opposite party are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OP Co. challenged the same in appeal before the State Commission, Delhi vide appeal no.07/58. The Sate Commission did not issue notice to the complainant with reference to this appeal and decided the same on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the rival contentions made before the District Forum and available on file and vide its impugned order dated 29.03.2007, decided to reduce the amount of compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- while upholding the rest of the order of the District Forum. While the appeal no.07/58 filed by the OP/respondent was decided by the State Commission vide its order dated 29.03.2007 by slightly modifying the reliefs granted by the District Forum against the OP/respondent, another appeal had also been filed before the State Commission bearing no.07/106 by the complainant against the same order of the District Forum. This appeal, however, came up for consideration before the State Commission later on and vide its impugned order dated 1.5.2007, the same was disposed of in terms of the following order:- Since the appeal bearing No.07/58 filed by the respondent South City Motors had already been decided by the Commission vide order dated 29.03.2007, the instant appeal is not maintainable as no other orders can be passed once the matter has already been decided finally. The appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. However, the appellant has remedy by way of appeal before National Commission. The present revision petition has now been filed before this Commission by the petitioner against both the orders dated 29.03.2007 and 1.5.2007 passed by the State Commission.

We have heard the petitioner in person and counsel for the respondent. It is to be noted that the respondent herein has not filed any revision petition against the orders of the State Commission. In view of this, the impugned orders of the State Commission have attained finality against the respondents. This position has been confirmed by the counsel for the respondent. In the circumstances, the limited question for consideration before us is in respect of the quantum of compensation. We have gone through the orders of the fora below. The District Forum after hearing the parties and appreciating the issues involved and the evidence adduced, had awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- in addition to other reliefs. However, the State Commission without issuing any notice to the petitioner/complainant reduced this amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and upheld the rest of the order of the District Forum. When the cross appeal filed by the petitioner came up for consideration, the State Commission simply dismissed it since a view had already been taken on the appeal of the respondents although without any notice to the petitioner. This action on the part of the Delhi State Commission obviously cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In our considered opinion, it is apparent that the State Commission committed an error in granting relief to the respondents without noticing the complainant/ petitioner while disposing of the appeal of the respondents. Having done so, the State Commission straightaway dismissed the appeal filed separately by the complainant/petitioner. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, we are constrained to set aside both the impugned orders of the State Commission. Since the District Forum has considered the matter carefully and fixed the amount of compensation at Rs.10,000/- in addition to the other reliefs in the given facts and circumstances of this case, we do not see any reason to interfere with this order while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the order of the District Forum dated 15.12.2006 is upheld in toto and the impugned orders dated 29.3.2007 and 1.5.2007 passed by the State Commission are set aside and the revision petition disposed of in terms of these directions.