Consumer Compensation Or Replacement U/S 14 Of Consumer Protection Act Requires Conclusive Proof Of Deficient Service: J&K High Court
Reinforcing a critical principle under consumer law, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that for an award of compensation or replacement of goods under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it must be conclusively established that the service provider was negligent or deficient in service.The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Vinod...
Reinforcing a critical principle under consumer law, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that for an award of compensation or replacement of goods under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it must be conclusively established that the service provider was negligent or deficient in service.
The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul set aside the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jammu, and the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had directed the replacement of a car and payment of compensation to the complainant.
“Section 14 empowers District Forum to award compensation for any injury or loss suffered by a consumer on account of negligence of the other-side and the claim must be substantiated by sufficient evidence”, the court remarked.
Background of the Case:
The case arose out of a complaint filed by one Harmeet Kour, who had purchased a Maruti ALTO800 car from Peaks Auto Pvt. Ltd., an authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd in 2017. However, when she approached the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Jammu, for registration of the vehicle, her application was rejected. She was informed that a vehicle bearing the same chassis number was already registered with the Registering Authority in Nalbari, Assam.
Harmeet Kour approached the dealership and requested a replacement, citing that it was unsafe to ply a vehicle whose registration was denied due to an apparent duplication. The dealer refused to replace the car. Aggrieved, she filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Jammu, which ruled in her favor and directed the dealer to replace the car and pay ₹50,000 as compensation along with ₹10,000 as litigation expenses.
This order was upheld by the State Consumer Commission in appeal, prompting the dealer to approach the High Court through writ petitions.
Court's Observations:
The High Court undertook a thorough review of the facts and held that there was no evidence of deficiency in service on the part of the dealer. It was noted that the written statement filed by the dealer before the District Forum was rejected on technical grounds due to delay, and the Forum proceeded ex parte.
The Court observed that the real issue stemmed from a clerical error by the District Transport Officer (DTO), Assam, who had wrongly recorded the chassis number of another vehicle, leading to a mistaken belief that the complainant's vehicle bore the same chassis number.
The court pointed out that because of this inadvertent mismatch, RTO Jammu denied registration. However, the error was eventually acknowledged and corrected by the Assam authorities, and the complainant's vehicle was successfully registered on 14.03.2020, it noted.
Furthermore, the Court pointedly noted that the failure to register the vehicle was not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the dealer. It added,
“Two vehicles one registered by Assam Registering Motor Vehicle Authority and other one purchased by the petitioner have different and distinct chassis numbers. The Assam Registering Motor Vehicle Authority has registered a vehicle and in the registration certificate they have mentioned wrong chassis number. So, for the wrong committed by DTO Assam, petitioner-opposite party cannot be made liable”
The High Court further emphasized that under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, compensation or replacement can be awarded only if there is conclusive proof of negligence or deficient service on part of the service provider. In this case, the court stated that there was no such evidence and the allegations that the dealer sold a vehicle with a fake chassis number were factually incorrect, as the chassis numbers of the two vehicles in question were clearly distinct, and the confusion arose from a typographical error.
Additionally, the Court noted that had the relevant registering authorities been included as parties in the proceedings, the issue could have been resolved without delay. The forum had incorrectly held the dealer liable without any factual basis for negligence.
Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court concluded that there was no deficiency in service by the dealer and that the District Forum and State Commission had both erred in directing compensation and replacement. Accordingly, the orders were quashed.
Case Title: Chairman, Peaks Auto Jammu Pvt. Ltd Vs Harmeet Kour and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 207