KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 151/2006
JUDGMENT DATED: 16-03-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
Maruthi Udyog Limited,
11th floor, Jeevan Prakash,
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110 001, : APPELLANT
R/by its General Manager (Legal)
And Company Secretary
Mr.S.RaviAiyar.
(By Adv.Sri.K.L.Narasimhan & V.Santharam)
Vs.
1. C.Anil Kumar, G-162, 1st floor,
Panampilly Nagar, Cochin-682 036.
(R1 by Adv.Sri.T.C.Krishna)
: RESPONDENTS
2. Indus Motor Company Private Limited,
R/by its Managing Director,
Opp. South Gate of Cochin Shipyard,
MG Road, Cochin-682 015.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.6/05 dated:30-09-2005. The appellant is the opposite party No.1 who prefers this appeal under the order of the Forum below that directed the 1st opposite party to replace the vehicle of the complainant, sold to him by the 2nd opposite party. It the complainant surrendering the defective vehicle to the 2nd opposite party and pay him a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.2500/- within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The respondents are the complainant and 2nd opposite party in the above mentioned OP respectively.
2. The complainant has a case that he purchased a Maruthi car manufactured by the appellant through the dealer the 2nd respondent. He paid the full amount of the vehicle of Rs.3,83,366/- on 22/6/2004. The complainant filed the OP.6/05 before the Forum below alleging that the said vehicle had been incurring various defects and he had to get the same repaired of each service. The complainant alleged that he got repaired the fender of the vehicle before the vehicle was subject to free service; that thereafter the rear view mirror has developed dark patches and this reflection became poor, that there was more patches on the rear door from the left side, that the vehicle developed rattling noise from the rear side on the front panel and the starter motor showed occasional failure to respond to ignition switch, that there was over flow of electrolyte from the battery and there was engine oil leak though repair was conducted by the 2nd opposite party, it was below standard, that though he made timely complaints, the repair was not done in a proper manner keeping the standard expecting from the dealer. The complainant have a case that there was poor workmanship of the dealer and the manufacturing defects and he prayed for refund of Rs.3,83,366/- with 7.5% interest from 22/6/2004 or in the alternative replacement of the car with a new one. The complainant also claimed a compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- for the mental agony and other sufferings.
3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their written version and in the written version the 1st opposite party contended that the vehicle was sold with warranty subject to certain terms and conditions. The opposite parties accordingly discharged their warranty obligations. The alleged defects were not repeated in a subsequent service. The complainant is not entitled to refund for the price of vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the same. There is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. All the defects pointed out to the complainant can be rectified. The complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency of service and the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant already purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 22/6/2004 and first free service reported works were done. The complainant reported engine oil leak which was rectified. The engine molding sound was rectified on 25/9/2004. The 2nd free service was done on 25/11/2004 and the defects reported that the crank shaft sound, engine oil leak and dash board filling, rattling etc were rectified. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. In the additional version another contention that the said additional defects is curable and that there is no manufacturing defect.
5. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and cross examined the complainant as PW1 and marked documents Exts.A1 to A22 from the side of the complainant. A Commission was taken out by the complainant to examine the defect of the vehicle and the commissioner was examined as PW2 and marked Ext.A12, his report. DW1 was examined on the side of the 1st opposite party and marked Exts.B1 to B7. The 2nd opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence but only Ext.B8 document. Complainant and opposite parties filed argument notes.
6. The Forum below heard both sides in detail and discussed the entire evidence adduced by both sides and answered all the questions arised one by one and answered and found that the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop several times and after repair and service the 2nd opposite party has not been able to cure the defects permanently. Therefore the defects are to be inherent defects connected with the manufacturing of the vehicle and the defects hold to be manufacturing defects. As the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop several times, it was held that the troubles with the vehicle, during the warranty period, it could not be rectified they are manufacturing defects. The Forum below discussed so many decisions of the National Commission, Sate Commission and other Apex Courts. In the result the Forum below allowed the complaint and passed the above impugned order.
7. This order was challenged by the appellant before this commission on this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing, the counsel for the appellants and respondents are present and they argued there own cases respectively. The counsels for the appellant argued his case on the strength of the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the defect is curable and it is not in a permanent nature and this may not be saying that the manufacturing defects. The above finding of the Forum below is not legally sustainable and as per the provisions of the evidence Act and Consumer Protection Act. He cited a decision of the Supreme Court that Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs. Suseel Kumar Gabgotra and Another (2006) 4 SCC 644. In this case the Apex Court found that for a various minor defects it is not necessary to replace the entire vehicle only necessary to cure the defects but the facts of the reported case is entirely different from the fact of this case. In this case the newly purchased car which showed so many defects include curable and incurable especially with the time of the warranty. A consumer who expects a long term trouble free, brand new car if he purchased a brand new car from the opposite parties with full payment include life tax and all other expenses but he suffered so many inconvenience and other sufferings by the purchase of this car. It is not only a deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. We this Commission heard in detail both sides and peruse the entire case records. We are seeing that the Forum below rightly answered all the points raised in this dispute. The order passed by the Forum below is strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the car already sold by the complainant to a 3rd party. The counsel for the appellant/opposite party also agreed this transaction. Both counsels are submitting these facts before this commission in the Open Court. They showed Judicial dishonesty. In the circumstances there is no meaning to direct the 1st opposite party to replace the vehicle of the complainant, sold to him by the 2nd opposite party. Forum already ordered Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant and cost of Rs.2500/-. We decide to modify this result portion of the order of the Forum below for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties especially the vehicle which sold by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. In the position of the complainant if any other person, they will not keep the defective vehicle with them until the final verdict of the court and the execution. Every consumer those who purchased brand new car for the comfort and long time trouble free use. This is the situation arised in all the cases due to the long delay of getting justice. All Forums shall be kept this in their mind. This is a legislation passed by the Parliament for speedy disposal of the cases. The 1st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other sufferings of the complainant and also directed to pay as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and modified the order accordingly. We directed the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.45,000/- to the complainant as compensation under the head of deficiency of service committed by the 1st opposite party and the mental agony and other loss sustained by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of complaint within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. The points of this appeal discuss one by one and answered accordingly. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
VL.
M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER
