NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 04.04.2011in Complainant No.07/2009
of the State Commission, Rajasthan)
Jaswant Industries,
having its registered office at:
Plot No.G-1/84, Behind New Power
House, Industrial Area, Jodhpur
Through Sh. Jaswant Jangid ……….Appellant
Versus
Chander Prakash Dewra
Resident of Hotel Rawat,
Behind Public Part, Jodhpur .........Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 197 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 04.04.2011in Complainant No.07/2009
of the State Commission, Rajasthan)
Chandra Prakash Devra
S/o Sh. Mangi Lal Devra
Aged about 65 years,
Resident of Hotel Rawat
Behind Public Park,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) ……….Appellant
Versus
Jaswant Industries,
Registered office at:
Plot No.G-1/84, Behind New Power
House, Industrial Area, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
Through owner & Proprietor
Heeralal Janghid & Sh. Jaswant Jangid .........Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Appellant
In FA No.183/2011 and
Respondent in FA No.197/2011: Mr. Abhay Sahai, Advocate
For the Respondents
In FA No.183/2011 &
Appellant in FA No.197/2011 : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain,
Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON: 24.04.12
ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
The Consumer Complaint No.7 of 2009 was filed by one Shri Chander Prakash Dewera before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The case of the Complainant was that he had purchased a new Bus chasis of Tata Company and given the same to OP M/s Jaswant Industries, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, for building the bus body with customize fittings. The declared purpose was to use this vehicle for intensive campaigning during the fourth coming elections to the State Legislative Assembly. The OP, being a professional bus body builder, had agreed to deliver the same in June, 2008 but actually delivered the vehicle in October, 2008. Allegedly, a total payment of Rs.20.75 lakhs had also been made to the OP for this purpose.
2. De hors the complainant, the case of the appellant was that besides delay in execution of the work, there were also several deficiencies noticed in its execution. These defects are listed in full detail in para 7 of the consumer complaint filed in the State Commission. In all 27 problems/shortcomings are mentioned therein. The complaint petition also stated that while the elections were scheduled for 4th of November, 2008, the Bus was ready only in the month of October, which frustrated the very purpose of investing in customize vehicle at such high cost. For this alleged defect in service and unfair trade practice the Complainant sought the following compensations in the consumer complaint before the State Commission:-
“1. the Applicant may be awarded a sum of Rs.20,75,000/- (Twenty lacs seventy Five Thousand) taken by the Non-applicant from the applicant as per para no.7 of the complaint;
2. the Applicant may be awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) by way of compensation on account of economic loss, unnecessary harassment and mental agony caused by the Non-applicant to the Applicant due to inconvenience caused by use of sub standard material despite charged for high quality materials, improper fittings, no benefit from service, no use of bus in election due to delay in delivering bus;
3. the Applicant may be awarded Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) towards litigation expenses;
4. that the Applicant had spent Rs.8,35.000/- on purchasing the best company’s chassis. After buying chassis, the Non-applicant was given the bus to do above work. The expenditure on the bus went in waste because of the acts of the Non-applicant which caused improper working of the facilities made available in the bus. This all was result of the acts of the Non-applicant. This amount of Rs.8,35,000/- may kindly be awarded in favour of the Applicant and against the Non-applicant;”
3. In the written response before the State Commission, the OP denied any responsibility for the delay in execution of the work. According to him, it was due to delay on the part of the Complainant himself in supplying the technical goods and due to several technical changes made on the instruction of the Complainant during the course of the work. The OP further alleged that all materials/fittings like the TV, air-conditioner etc. were purchased by the Complainant himself, only the fitting of the same was done by the OP. As for the deficiencies in execution of the work, the response of the OP was that the Complainant had used the vehicle in election and filed the consumer complaint only after the election was over.
4. The State Commission appointed a Commissioner to examine the bus, in the presence of the two parties and submit his report. This inspection took place on 13.2.2010. The findings of the Commissioner have been incorporated in great details in the order of the State Commission. The Commission has also noted that all defects were accepted by the OP at the time of the inspection by the Commissioner and the OP had agreed to repair/rectify them. The cost of such rectification/repair was estimated to be about Rs.4.5 to Rs.5 lakhs by the Commissioner. Considering this report on the defects in execution and the estimated cost of rectification, the State Commission has allowed the complaint and made the following award in favour of the Complainant:-
“1. pay 4,50,000/- to the Applicant for curing the defects of bus;
2 . pay Rs.1,50,000/- for physical, mental and economic harassment;
3. for litigation expenses the Applicant can obtain from Non-applicant Rs.20,000/-;
4. to comply with the order, 45 days are given to Non-applicant;
5. If Non-applicant does not comply with the order within stipulated period of 45 days, Applicant shall be entitled for 9% interest per annum on the above amount of Rs.6,00,000/- till actual payment.”
5. Both parties have challenged the above order of the State Commission in two separate appeals filed in this Commission. We have perused the records and heard the two counsels.
6. FA No.183 of 2011 filed by the OP M/s. Jaswant Industries, Jodhpur
The appeal memo makes a very detailed reference to the report of the Commissioner appointed by the State Commission and the defects listed in his report. The appellant/OP does not question the correctness of the findings of the Commissioner and yet questions the justifications for award of Rs.4.5 lakhs towards the cost of rectification. Even while questioning the estimated cost of repair, the appellant does not indicate what would have been the correct cost of rectification in his assessment and whether a submission had been made in this regard before the State Commission.
7. FA No.197 of 2011 filed by the Complainant, Chander Prakash Devra
The appellant has sought enhancement of the award of compensation for mental agony and harassment from Rs.1.5 lakhs awarded by the State Commission to Rs.10 lakhs. The sole explanation is that he had spent Rs.20.75 lakhs in customizing the bus body and was unable to use the vehicle due to defects in execution. The appellant/Complainant has also assailed the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission should have appreciated that the entire purpose for this customization of the bus body was to use the vehicle during campaigning for the elections. As the Bus was delivered in October, 2008, when the elections were held in November, 2008, the whole purpose behind this investment was defeated. Therefore, the State Commission should have awarded the entire cost of the vehicle in favour of the Complainant. This argument does not have any substance when seen in the background of the evidence laid before the State Commission. The appellant/Complainant had the opportunity to challenge the stand of the OP/Jaswant Industries, Jodhpur before the State Commission viz. that there was no written agreement between the parties for execution of this work and the delay was caused by the delayed supply of materials by the Complainant himself.
8. In our view, both the appeals have failed to make out any case against the order of the State Commission. It needs to be stated that the impugned order is based on impartial third party assessment of the defects in execution of the work and the cost required for their rectification. We therefore, find no ground to interfere with the well- reasoned order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No.7 of 2009. Consequently, both appeals are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
…………………………
(V.B.GUPTA,J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
………………………….
(VINAY KUMAR)
MEMBER
s./-
