In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh clarified that compensation or replacement under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can only be granted when there is conclusive evidence of negligent or deficient service by the service provider.
The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of Chairman, Peaks Auto Jammu Pvt. Ltd vs Harmeet Kour and another. The Court allowed the writ petitions filed by Peaks Auto, thereby quashing the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the J&K State Consumer Commission, which had earlier directed the replacement of a Maruti ALTO800 and awarded ₹50,000 compensation along with ₹10,000 litigation costs to the complainant.
Read Also:- Allahabad HC Grants Bail to BJP Leader Accused of Brutal Murder in Agra
“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.” — J&K High Court
Background
In 2017, Harmeet Kour purchased a Maruti ALTO800 from Peaks Auto. However, her vehicle could not be registered by the RTO Jammu because another vehicle with the same chassis number was already registered in Assam. She sought a replacement from the dealer, which was denied, prompting her to file a complaint.
Read Also:- Denial of Public Job Due to Hepatitis B Illegal, Violates Article 14: Kerala High Court
The District Forum ruled in her favor, labeling it a case of “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practice.” The State Commission upheld this ruling, stating the complainant was unable to use her vehicle due to non-registration.
High Court’s Analysis
The High Court found that the dealer had not committed any error. It noted that the registration problem arose from a clerical error by the DTO in Assam, where the wrong chassis number was entered. The correct chassis number of Kour’s vehicle was different and distinct from the one wrongly registered in Assam.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Keeps Stay Order on PMLA Case Against M3M Director in Abeyance Till July 30
“Two vehicles — one registered by Assam Motor Vehicle Authority and the other purchased by the petitioner — have different and distinct chassis numbers... for the wrong committed by DTO Assam, petitioner-opposite party cannot be made liable.” — J&K High Court
The Court emphasized that the error was purely administrative, and neither the manufacturer nor the dealer was at fault. The complainant failed to implead the relevant transport authorities — DTO Assam and RTO Jammu — in her complaint. The Court held that had they been made parties, the issue could have been resolved earlier.
It was also observed that the registration issue was resolved once the DTO Assam corrected the mistake, and the vehicle was finally registered on March 14, 2020.
“There is no evidence to attribute deficiency of services to the petitioner-dealer… The case does not fall under the category of deficiency in service.” — J&K High Court
Allowing the dealer’s writ petitions, the Court held that the orders of both the District Forum and the State Commission were incorrect and lacked proper legal basis. It ruled that compensation or replacement under Section 14 must be based on proven negligence, which was absent in this case.
Case Title: Chairman, Peaks Auto Jammu Pvt. Ltd Vs Harmeet Kour and another
