Case nº Revision Petition No. 2860 Of 2014, (Against the Order dated 25/04/2014 in Appeal No. 254/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, September 24, 2014 (case 1. Cashier, Shree Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2. Marketing Manager Vs Partha Kumar Chatterjee)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate and Ms. Rupali S. Ghosh, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Avijit Gope, Advocate and Mr. Somraj Gangopadhyay, Advocate
PresidentMr. V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Resolution DateSeptember 24, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

  1. The complainant, Chairman, Birnagar Municipality, purchased an ambulance from the petitioner company for a consideration of Rs.7,17,968/- and took delivery of the ambulance on 23.04.10. On obtaining registration certificate, the complainant found that the chassis of the ambulance was manufactured in the year 2006. The year of manufacturing the chassis, however, was not mentioned either in the delivery challan or in the quotation. Alleging that the vehicle was defective and was constantly giving troubles such as overheating of engine etc., a complaint was filed before the concerned District Forum, seeking change of the defective old chassis by new one or refund of the amount of Rs.7,17,968/-, which the complainant had paid to the petitioner alongwith interest on that amount. A sum of Rs.1 lakh was sought as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the litigation.

  2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner interalia on the ground that the complainant had been verbally informed that the chassis used for the ambulance would be of the year 2006 and the ambulance was purchased with the aforesaid knowledge.

  3. The District Forum vide its order dated 07.02.2013 directed the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.7,17,968/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice. Rs.40,000/- were also awarded towards damages. It was further directed that if the order is not complied within 45 days, the petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs.200/- per day as interest of the entire amount.

  4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 25.04.14, the said Commission dismissed the appeal with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of its appeal, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

  5. It is an admitted case that the chassis used by the petitioner for converting it into ambulance was manufactured in the year 2006. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant was informed, before the ambulance was ordered by it, that the chassis manufactured in the year 2006 would be used for fabricating an Ambulance on it. There is absolutely no document on record, which would show that the petitioner had informed the complainant Municipality that it would be using a chassis manufactured in the year 2006 for fabricating the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT