In the complaint, filed before the District Forum, Ahmedabad in the matter between Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & Anr. And General Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd the facts of the case were as hereunder-

That the complainant is that he read advertisement given by the appellant as follows: "Introducing a world without borders, an SUV to end all SUVs. That's the new Chevrolet Forester. With the Power of 120 horses under its borne unique All-Wheels (AWD), unmatched comfort and luxury by-road, off-road or no- road."

He purchased the vehicle on 1st May, 2004 for Rs.14 Lakhs and got accessories worth Rs.1,91,295/- fitted and also got the vehicle insured and registered.

He realised that the vehicle was not SUV but a mere passenger car, not fit for "off-road, no road and dirt road" driving

Hence complaint before the district court with prayer-

"The complainant, therefore, most respectfully prays : That this Hon'ble Forum be pleased to hold that the opposite parties (joint and severally) to have practiced unfair trade practice, towards the complainant and direct them (jointly and severally) to remove unfair trade practice, practiced by them against the complainant;

Consumer forum ordered in favour of complaianant directing  the opposite parties (jointly and severally) to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh) and Rs.1,91,295/- to the complainant along with the 18% interest, from the date of payment to the complainant and to take back the said vehicle from the complainant, after refunding the complainant's money with interest, as prayed

The said order was challenged by the opposite party before the State Commission, Gujarat Ahmedabad .The State Commission held that the vehicle had no mechanical or manufacturing defect but the advertisement that car was SUV amounted to "unfair trade practice". Accordingly, the complainant was held entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation which included costs of litigation. The appellant was directed not to describe the vehicle in question as SUV in any form of advertisement, website, literature etc. and to make the correction that it is a passenger car as mentioned in the manual.

National commission heard the case in revision and held;

1.      This act of the respondent would clearly fall within the mischief of unfair trade practice

2.      Directed to refund a sum of Rs.12,50,000 (Rupees twelve lacs fifty thousand only) to the consumer.

3.      punitive damages for "unfair trade practice" in selling the said vehicles to about 260 consumers. appellant should pay punitive damages of Rs.25 lakhs and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs be paid to the complainant while the rest be deposited in the "Consumer Welfare Fund" of the Central Government

The appeals have been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme court order on October 9, 2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8072-8073 of 2009 in the matter of GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR. against the order dated 16th December, 2008 (Revision Petition Nos.3349 of 2006 and 2858 of 2008) of the National Commission.

The main question raised in these appeals is whether in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages was permissible..

Final operative order passed by the Supreme court reverses the order of National Commission in which compensation was awarded

“ Compensation can be granted only in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Clause (d) contemplates award of compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered due to negligence of the opposite party. In the present case there was no allegation or material placed on record to show negligence." Thus, mere proof of "unfair trade practice" is not enough for claim or award of relief unless causing of loss is also established which in the present case has not been established. There was no prayer for any compensation’.

This is also to noted that  this Honble court had been very strict in the past  on the issue of harassment to the public at large .Ruling was made as back as in 1993 by the Apex court in the case of Luck now Development Authority V M.G.Gupta wherein justice R.M.Sahay in his historical judgment ordered to fix the responsibility of the officers responsible for causing harassment and agony to the complainant.

Luck now Development Authority V M.G.Gupta[1994] I SC Cases 243,civil appeal no 6237 of 1991 and 16842of 1992 decided on Nov. 5,1993

“When public servant by malafide,oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes injustice ,harassment to common man and renders the state or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved from public fund, State or instrumentality is duty bound to later on recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned”

Further “No functionary in exercise of statutory can claim immunity except to the extend protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressive are accountable for their behavior before commission or the court entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law ’’             

 It was pin pointed in clear terms in the order that the officers in the  public bodies sit over the files where paper do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless and shocked. Under the circumstances in the case before the Apex court, Justice Sahay expected the consumer courts and commissions to order for payment of damages by the erring officers to the complainant who has been harassed in their hands.

.

 

Dr Prem Lata

 

Previous

Next