Kaushalendra Pratap Singh vs Ayodhya Prasad Mishra & Anr

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member

Heard Ms. Shivani Mishra, daughter of the complainant and Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate for Rasandik Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. None appeared on behalf of Kaushalendra Pratap Singh

The above revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 04.01.2022 of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in First Appeals 400/2019 and 918/2019 (arising out of CC/06/2014) whereby the State Commission dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

The office has reported one day’s delay in filing RP/843/2022. The petitioner has filed IA/6094/2023 for condoning the delay in filing the revision, wherein it has been stated that due to oversight the petitioner could not furnish complete set of the file, due to which the revision petition could not be prepared within time. For the reason stated in the application and in the interest of justice, delay is condoned and the revision petition is treated to be filed within limitation.

Ayodhya Prasad Mishra filed CC/06/2014 for directing the opposite parties to pay (i) repair the defaulting parts of complainant’s vehicle within the warranty period; (ii) pay the EMI of complainant’s loan to the bank for the period starting from the date the vehicle got spoiled till the date of repair; (iii) refund the cost of vehicle Rs.235000/-; (iv) pay the compensation to the complainant for mental stress and harassment caused due to the fraud committed by the opposite parties; and (v) the litigation cost and other legal expenses whatever Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

The complainant purchased a vehicle Chief 407 Super Three Wheeler from opposite party No.1 on 18.04.2013 for Rs.235000/-. He obtained a vehicle loan of Rs.2 lakhs from Allahabad Bank. The complainant was using the vehicle and getting regularly serviced by the authorised service centre. On 28.07.2013, the vehicle did not start, then it was pushed ahead and the engine of the vehicle and chassis hanged. The complainant went to the authorised dealer and explained the condition of the vehicle. He was advised to keep the vehicle parked where it is. The complainant got the vehicle inspected by another mechanic who on inspection told that the engine and chassis required replacement. The dealer also told that he will intimate the company and the parts of the vehicle would come within a week. After one week, the complainant again went to the dealer and he was told that the dealer had gone somewhere out. Even after repeated requests, the vehicle was not repaired and ultimately the complainant was told that the agency has been closed. The vehicle had run for 1000 kilometre only and was lying unrepaired. Due to non-repair of the vehicle, the complainant is not able to pay the EMI of vehicle loan. The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties on 05.09.2013 for repair of his vehicle being in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.06/2014 with the District Commission, Gonda on 13.01.2014.

The opposite parties filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint. Opposite party No.1 stated that it was authorised dealer of Rasandik Engineering Industries India Limited. The vehicle got damaged due to wrong and negligent driving. However, the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and returned to him. It was denied that there was any defect in the engine and the chassis. They had not given any assurance that the engine and the chassis would be replaced. The complainant was provided with a new vehicle and it was his responsibility to take due care of it. If any defect has occurred, opposite party was not responsible for the same. The allegation against opposite party are false and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party No.2 stated in the written statement that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 has not direct dealing with the customers. The complainant was provided a new vehicle on the basis of which the complainant had taken the loan. If there was any defect in the vehicle, there was no question of giving the loan by the bank. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua them.

The District Commission allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.02.2019 and directed the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally cost of the vehicle Rs.225000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a.  from the date of filing the complaint till realization with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the complainant and opposite party No.1 filed cross appeals with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide common order dated 04.01.2022 dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the present revision petitions have been filed by the opposite parties.

The counsel of the petitioner Kaushlendra Pratap Singh submitted that at the relevant time, Kaushlendra Pratap Singh was the dealer of Rasandik Engineering Industries India Ltd. The complainant had purchased the vehicle after thorough enquiry and with full satisfaction. The seating capacity of the vehicle was 3+1 and the complainant got it registered with seating capacity of 6+1 in violation of the terms & conditions of the company for use of the vehicle. The petitioner had repaired the vehicle as and when brought by the complainant for repairing. The defect, if any, occurred in the vehicle was due to wrong driving and mishandling by the complainant.

The allegation of the petitioner that the defect occurred due to wrong driving or mishandling of the vehicle is belied by the observation of the District Commission that the opposite party (petitioner herein) did not file any evidence of his mechanic or Engineer to prove that the defect occurred due to wrong driving or mishandling of the vehicle. The District Commission got the vehicle inspected by the office of Assistant Regional Manager, U.P. State Roadways, Gonda. Sambhagiya Adhikari had submitted his report stating that the vehicle was inspected by Pravidhik Nirikshak and it was found that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. Body and floor of the vehicle were found in worst condition. It was also stated in the report that the engine and chassis of the vehicle were found broken. On the basis of the expert report, the District Commission allowed the Complaint. The petitioner alleged that they repaired the vehicle as and when it was brought to them. I am unable to understand as to what repair was done by the petitioner when there is crystal clear finding of the independent expert that the engine and the chassis of the vehicle were found broken.

Purchase of the vehicle for Rs.225000/- is admitted by the parties. It is also not disputed that the complainant took a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from Allahabad Bank, for which he had mortgaged his house. The complainant could not pay EMI of the Bank due to non-use of the vehicle. The District Commission on the basis of the expert report observed that both the opposite parties were deficient in providing service to the complainant. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Commission. The petitioner failed to produce anything contrary to the concurrent findings of the Fora below so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussion, Revision Petition No.401 of 2022 is dismissed being devoid of merit.  As far as Revision Petition No.843 of 2022 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner Rasandik Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. has not challenged the order of the District Commission dated 25.02.2019, therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is has attained finality qua the petitioner Rasandik Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Revision Petition No.843 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.