GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED versus ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 09-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 11 S.C.R. 16 
A 
GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED 
B 
c 
v. 
ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8072-8073 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 09, 2014 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
s.2(1)(r) - Unfair trade practice - Complaint against 
appellant - Claiming refund of amount - Courts below found 
that the appellant had committed unfair trade practice -
National Commission apart from ordering on the claim, also 
0 imposed punitive damages - Held: Finding of unfair trade 
practice affirmed - But order of punitive damages set aside 
because such claim was not made by the complainan.t and 
the appellant had no notice of such claim. 
s.2(1)(r) - Unfair trade practice - Mere proof of unfair 
E labour practice not enough for claim or award of relief unless 
causing of loss is established. 
Complaint - Alleging unfair trade practice - Scope of -
Held: Complaint can cover not only individual but also 
F consumers, who are not identifiable conveniently. 
G 
H 
Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of Consumer 
Protection Act - The Act being a social legislation, liberal and. 
purposive interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of 
the Act avoiding hyper-technical approach. 
Damages - Punitive damages - Award of - Punitive 
damages are awarded against a conscious wrong unrelated 
to the actual loss suffered. 
16 
• 
• 
GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK 
17 
RAMNIK LAL TOLAT 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. The concurrent finding recorded by the 
Courts below to the effect that "unfair trade practice" was 
committed by the appellant is affirmed. [Para 14] [24-H; 
25-A] 
B 
2.1. The Consumer Protection Act is a piece of social 
legislation to provide a forum to the consumers against 
any deficiency in service as well as against any loss or 
injury arising out of "unfair trade practice". Scope of a 
complaint can cover not only individual consumer but C 
also consumers who are not identifiable conveniently. 
However, the complainant has to make an averment and 
make a claim. [Para 18] [26-D-E] 
2.2. Having regard to the laudable object of the social o 
legislation liberal and purposive interpretation has to be 
placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper-
technical approach. At the same time, fair procedure is 
hall mark of every legal proceeding and an affected party 
is entitled to be put to notice of the claim. [Para 18] [26-
E 
F-G] 
Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Shakti Coop. House 
Building Society Ltd. 2009 (6) SCR 12 : (2009) 12 SCC 369; 
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. MRTP Commission 2002 
(4) Suppl. SCR 219: (2003) 1 SCC 129; Godfrey Phillips 
F 
India Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar 2008 (5) SCR 937 : (2008) 4 SCC 
504 - relied on. 
2.3. Mere proof of "unfair trade practice" is not 
enough for claim or award of relief, unless causing of loss 
G 
is also established, which in the present case has not 
been established. [Para 19] [29-C] 
2.4. There is neither any averment in the complaint 
about the suffering of punitive damages by the other 
consumers nor the appellant was aware that any such 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. • 
A claim is to be met by it. Normally, punitive damages are 
awarded against a conscious wrong doing unrelated to 
the actual loss suffered. Such a claim has to be specially 
pleaded. [Para 20) [29-D-E] 
,8 
2.5. The National Commission has gone m_uch 
beyond its jurisdiction in awarding the relief which was 
neither sought in the complaint nor before tlie State 
Commission. Therefore, to this extent, the order of the 
National Commission cannot be sustained. [Para 20) [29-
C F-G] 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
2009 (6) SCR 12 
Relied on 
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 219 Relied on 
2008 (5) SCR 937 
Relied on 
Para 19 
Para 19 
Para 19 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
8072-8073 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2008 of the 
E National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3349 of 2006 and 2858 of 2008. 
F 
R.P. Bhatt, Vikram Dhokalia (for Dua Associates) for the 
Appellant. 
Aparan Jha, Braj K. Mishra for the Respondents. 
Caveator1in-person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. These appeals have 
G been preferred against the order dated 16th December, 2008 
of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for 
short "the National Commission") in Revision Petition Nos.3349 
of 2006 and 2858 of 2008. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.