AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tashi Rabstan, J. - This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-2-2010 passed by the J. and K. State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu in complaint No. 2844/2006 titled M/s. Savvy Fashion Pvt. Ltd. v. Hyundai Motors India Limited and
Anr., whereby the J. and K. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (for short ""the Commission"") has dismissed the Complaint
being found of frivolous and vexatious nature with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the Complainant to the other parties.
Briefly, the case of appellant is that he purchased Accent Viva Car fitted with CRDi engine from respondent No. 2 on 7-6-2003 for a
consideration of Rs. 6,58,510/-. His grievance is that hardly the said Car had covered a distance of 20000 kilometers on the road, it started giving
extra-ordinary long ignition and, ultimately, after covering a distance of 50000 kilometers, the engine totally collapsed. Since the defect had
occurred during the warranty period, the vehicle was sent to respondent No. 2 for repairs. It is pleaded that although the defect was removed,
however, the appellant received the vehicle under protest on the ground that CRDi engine was either suffering from manufacturing defect or had
defective technology. It is stated that after the vehicle plied on the road for 10000 kilometers more, again the same defect surfaced in the vehicle.
The appellant informed respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 10-8-2006 that the engine of the Car was not giving satisfactory service on account of
pickup and fuel economy. The engine was giving 9 kilometers per litre in local running and 13 kilometers per litre on the National Highway. It is
contended that since the respondents failed to remove the defect, appellant filed a complaint before the Commission on the ground that because of
the defect in the CDRi engine in the Car, which the appellant had purchsed at a price of Rs. 6,58,510/- two years ago, respondent No. 1
(Manufacturer) after modifying the design of CDRi engine, re-launched the modified model by the name of ""Hyundai Verna"" for a price of Rs.
6,21,000/-. It was pleaded before the learned Commission that because of its defective technology, the price of the Car has been lowered down
after the change in the engine was made. The learned Commission, however, dismissed the complaint of appellant on the ground of frivolous and
vexatious nature with costs of Rs. 10,000/-to be paid by the Complainant to the other parties. Hence the present Appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the learned Commission.
The Commission dismissed the complaint on the following reasons. For facility of reference Para 6 is reproduced hereunder :
After considering the respective contentions of counsel appearing for the parties, we find that the complaint has approached the
Commission not with clean hand and clear conscience. From the very beginning he had been trying to make out a case that defective engine
had been used in his car as well as in others of the same model and make. He has not produced any evidence in that regard. It appears that
the complainant from the very beginning had been entering into correspondence with the Ops which is of unilateral nature and has no
authenticity. The evidence brought on record by Ops proves to the hilt that whatever defects were brought to the notice of OP No. 2 within
the warranty period those were removed and detailed arguments with facts and figures had been advanced in support of this finding. The
complainant has not brought on record even an iota of evidence to prove that the car suffered from any mechanical defect. Rather, it is
found that when a major defect had developed in the vehicle after the warrantee period and he brought the vehicle for repairs with OP No.
2 he left it there as he wanted free service against the bills which had been issued for effecting the repairs. He tried to get indulgence from the
Commission by making application of frivolous nature to get the car back tree of cost but did not succeed. He is found to be a consumer of
unscrupulous nature who has tried his luck by using Machiavellian method ton hood-wink Commission in order to enrich himself on the basis
of a cooked and concocted story of manufacturing defect in the engine. The consumer Fora are not meant as money minting counters for
such type of consumers but being the courts of equity, they are meant to redress the grievances of those consumers who are genuine and
come with bona fide claims. Undoubtedly, the complaint is found of frivolous and vexatious nature which u/S. 20 of the J. and K. Consumer
Protection Act, 1987 is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-to be paid by the complainant to the Ops. The complaint is consigned to
records.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint; we are therefore unable to find any
reason to interfere with the order dated 24-2-2010 passed by the learned Commission.
In light of the above, this Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Registry is directed to return the record to the learned Commission forthwith.