BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA NO. 676 of 2013 AGAINST CC NO.918 OF 2010
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between :
P.Venkateswara Sai Prasad,
S/o. Mr. P.M. V.Naidu,
Aged about 43 years, Occ: Govt. Service,
R/o. H.No.A-10, T.V. Colony,
Ramanthapur, Uppal,
Hyderabad – 500039, A.P. …Appellant/ Complainant
AND :
- M/s. Acer Motors, having its Office
At A-1, Moti Valley, Tirmulgherry,
Secunderabad.
- M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India ltd.,
Regional Service Manager,
Or Teritory Manager,
Region Office (AP) 101 & 102,
First Floor, Mahavir Chambers,
Liberty Square, Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad – 500020. …Respondents / Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. Shireen Sethna Bari
& Associates, R1
M/s. Erranki Phani Kumar
& Associates, R2
FA NO. 981 of 2013 AGAINST CC NO.918 OF 2010
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. Acer Motors, having its Office
At A-1, Moti Valley, Tirmulgherry,
Secunderabad. …Appellant/Opposite party No.1
AND :
- P.Venkateswara Sai Prasad,
S/o. Mr. P.M. V.Naidu,
Aged about 43 years, Occ: Govt. Service,
R/o. H.No.A-10, T.V. Colony,
Ramanthapur, Uppal,
Hyderabad – 500039, A.P. …..Respondent / Complainant
- M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India ltd.,
Regional Service Manager,
Namely Narendra Kumar or Teritory Manager,
Namely Syed Zakiruddin Ahmed Quadri,
Region Office (AP) 101 & 102,
First Floor, Mahavir Chambers,
Liberty Square, Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad – 500020. …Respondent / Opposite Party No.2
Counsel for the Respondent 1 / Complainant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh &
Associates
Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite party No.1 : Ms. Shireen Sethna Bari
& Associates, OP No.1/Appellant
Counsel for the Respondent 2/Opposite party No.2: M/s. Erranki Phani Kumar
& Associates, R2
FA NO. 1235 of 2013 AGAINST CC NO.918 OF 2010
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India ltd.,
Rep. by its authorized signatory,
Regisstered office at Plot No.1,
Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110070. …Appellant/Opposite party No.2
AND :
- P.Venkateswara Sai Prasad,
S/o. Mr. P.M. V.Naidu,
Aged about 43 years, Occ: Govt. Service,
R/o. H.No.A-10, T.V. Colony,
Ramanthapur, Uppal,
Hyderabad – 500039, A.P. ….Respondent / Complainant
- M/s. ACER Motors, having its Office
At A-1, Moti Valley, Tirmulgherry,
Secunderabad. …Respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Erranki Phani Kumar
& Associates, R2
Counsel for the Respondent 1 : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shireen Sethna Bari
& Associates, R2
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Seventh day of December
Two thousand Sixteen
C O M M O N O R D E R
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
These three Appeals arise against the order dated 05.06.2013 in C.C.no. 918/2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad [for brevity, “the District Forum”] directing the opposite party nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,98,447/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The complainant has filed F.A.no.676/2013 whereas the opposite party nos.1 & 2 have filed F.A.no.981/2013 and F.A.no.1235/2013 respectively.
2. Shortly stated the case of the complainant that on 22.08.2009 he purchased Maruthi Omni Van, AP-29AJ-1741, from the dealer [OP.no.1] which was manufactured by the opposite party no.2, for a sum of Rs.2,20,496/-. But soon thereafter he found a manufacturing defect in it due to which he got it repaired on 26.08.2009, 07.10.2009, 20.04.2010, 07.05.2010 & 06.06.2010 but not to his satisfaction. As the vehicle was giving troubles time and again, he handed over it to the opposite party no.1 with a request to replace the same with a new vehicle. When the opposite party no.1 refused for the same he filed the complaint before the District Forum on 23.07.2010.
3. The defence set up by opposite party no.1, before the District Consumer Forum, in brief, is that on 07.10.2009 & 20.04.2010 free services were given to the vehicle by fitting a non return valve to improve the fuel supply and thus the vapor lock was arrested. The problems faced by the complainant were only of normal wear and tear problems which were promptly attended by the opposite party no.1 to his satisfaction. Infact, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle but as the complainant could not maintain and use it properly, he faced the problems. In these circumstances replacement of the vehicle was impracticable. The compensation sought for by the complainant is also unreasonable.
4. The opposite party no.2 has resisted the claim on the grounds, interalia, that M/s. Maruthi Suzuki is a world renowed Automobile Manufacturing Company having its presence in India for more than a quarter of century and that the vehicle in question was manufactured in accordance with all the statutory approvals and compliances and was sold after conducting the tests regarding it’s quality and emission norms. The complainant took it’s delivery after due inspection including road tests ensuring it’s safety. It’s warranty period was of 24 months or 40,000 Kms., from the date of purchase. Therefore, the question of manufacturing defect doesn’t arise.
5. After due enquiry into the matter the Forum below passed the impugned order aggrieved by which the complainant has come up with F.A. no.676/2013 by contending, in brief, that he had to engage a hired car during the period of repairs of his car by the opposite party no.1. The District Forum has failed to award Rs.75,000/- towards car rental bills despite the complainant has filed the bills under Ex.A3 to A12. Further, deduction of 10% towards depreciation value while awarding total cost of the vehicle is also illegal. Infact, he never sought value of the it but sought for replacement of it with a new one. The District Forum has also failed to appreciate and award the amount of interest which the complainant had paid to clear his vehicle loan obtained from the bank and also did not grant escalation price while ordering refund of invoice value. Though the complainant paid Life Tax of the vehicle, it was not considered by the District forum. Granting of meager compensation without any punitive damages in the impugned order is illegal. For these reasons he sought to set aside the same.
6. The opposite party no.1 has challenged the impugned order in F.A.no.981/2013 on the grounds, in brief, that without observing any deficiency in service on it’s part by the District Forum, the reliefs were granted infavour of the complainant illegally. The District Forum also failed to consider expert opinion in a right perspective but gave findings on conjuncture and surmises. Though there is no manufacturing defect in the car, the order was passed erroneously without any proper evidence.
7. The opposite party no.2 has challenged the impugned order in F.A.1235/2013 by contending, interalia, that awarding of compensation and refund of car value after depreciation is against the settled principles of law though no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle was proved by the complainant. He has filed the case after using the vehicle for a period of 11 months and illegally claimed the rental bills having availed services of maintenance during the warranty period of his vehicle. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 and that as such the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.
8. We have perused the impugned order with entire material evidence placed on record and the written arguments.
9. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties to the appeals.
10. Now the point for consideration is that:-
Whether the impugned order is erroneous both on facts and law and that as such liable to be set aside ?
11. Point:- It is an undisputed fact that after purchase of the vehicle on 22.08.2009 the complainant was constrained to take it for repairs to the opposite party no.1 on 26.08.2009, 07.10.2009, 20.04.2010, 07.05.2010 & 06.06.2010. Evidently the opposite party no.1 offered its services and attempted to rectify the defects. The e-mail dated 10.07.2010 sent by opposite party no.1 to the complainant shows that during the test trial, vapor lock in the vehicle was observed resulting in stating problem of the engine. To overcome it, the opposite party no.1 has fitted a Non Return Valve to improve the fuel supply without starvation to engine during the requirement of fuel. Taking of vehicle for repairs time and again itself shows that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. This aspect was also emphasized by the technician who inspected it on 05.01.2013 and filed his report the during pendency of the case as per the orders of the learned District Forum. It is to be noted that the said technician inspected the vehicle in the presence of both the parties by way of test drive. Though the opposite parties have questioned the competency of said technician in their Appeals, they did not choose to cross examine him before the District Forum or adduce any evidence to rebut his opinion as furnished in his report. It has been alleged by the opposite party no.1 in F.A.no.1235/2013 that the vehicle was inspected by the expert service engineer, Sh.Kizhapali Kishore [Regional Service Training Centre – South-4] having vast experience at the workshop of opposite party no.2 and found no defects with its engine, he was not examined during the enquiry before the District Forum. All these facts and circumstances clearly show inherent defect in the engine of the vehicle.
12. Evidently, most of the times the vehicle in question was with opposite party no.1 to undergo repairs. In this regard the complainant has contended that out of 286 days, after purchase of the vehicle, he could use it only for 75 days. It is common knowledge that no sane person will take his vehicle so many times to get it repaired within a short span of hardly 11 months of purchase unless there is some persistent problem. This aspect must have caused hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. It is also significant to note that he purchased the vehicle by obtaining a bank loan and repaid it with interest as evident from the Statement of Account under Ex.A13. All these facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, certainly amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
13. We have perused the impugned order. In this regard it is to be seen that though the complainant had sought for replacement of defective vehicle with a new one, the learned District Forum has awarded refund of it’s value and that too with depreciation of 10%, even without considering the life tax paid by the complainant at the time of registration of the vehicle so also the interest to the bank on the loan amount. On this aspect, in our view the learned District Forum was misdirected in appreciation of evidence. With regard to the other aspects we agree with the appreciation of evidence of the District Forum. However, it has rightly rejected the claim of rental value of Rs.75,000/- etc., by giving convincing reasoning. Further, in our opinion the quantum of compensation awarded by it seems to be inadequate in the given set of facts and circumstances. Therefore, we deem it just and necessary to enhance it to Rs.50,000/- to meet the ends of justice.
14. In view of the discussion made above we hold that the F.A.no.676/2013 is fit to be allowed in part and F.A.no.981/2013 and F.A.no.1235/2013 are liable to be dismissed.
15. The point is answered accordingly.
16. In the result, F.A.no.676/2013 is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to replace the Maruthi Omni Van, AP-29AJ-1741 with a new vehicle of the same model and pay to the complainant jointly and severally a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Consequently, F.A.no.981/2013 and F.A.no.1235/2013 are dismissed.
For compliance, 4 weeks time.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt.07.12.2016
