Haryana

StateCommission

A/1002/2016

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDER KANT - Opp.Party(s)

SALIL SABHLOK

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           1002 of 2016

                                                Date of the Institution: 21.10.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         13.04.2018

 

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

Also at

Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon.

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Shri Chander Kant son of Shri Ram Kumar, resident of Village and Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana.

 

…..Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Apra Auto (India) Private Limited, Mangla House, Bawal Road, Rewari.

….. Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:    Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                     

                            

Present:-    Shri Salil Sablok, Advocate for appellant.

                   Ms. Neeru Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                   (Name of respondent No.2 deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 13.03.2018).

 

                                                O R D E R

 

R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

 

          As per order dated 09.04.2018 contained in letter No.1306, I conducted these proceedings singly and adjourned today for orders.

2.      It was alleged by complainant that he was unemployed person and for earning livelihood he purchased vehicle in question from opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’) on 11.09.2010 with two years warranty qua manufacturing defects. On 03.01.2012 he approached OP No.1 i.e. Apra Auto (India) Private Limited because the engine was overheating as mentioned in job card. Rs.4,500/- were told as cost of repair, but, problem of replacement of part of engine was not mentioned in job card dated 03.01.2012. Ultimately the vehicle was delivered to him on 27.01.2012 and he suffered huge loss during this period. OPs be directed to pay repair charges to the tune of Rs.47,249/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- qua mental harassment and financial loss etc.    

3.      In reply it was alleged by OPs that he was not covered by the definition of consumer because vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. His vehicle covered distance of 84724 kilometers upto 25.04.2012 and warranty was for a period of 24 months or 40000 kilometers, whichever was earlier from the date of purchase subject to terms and conditions mentioned in service booklet. Vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. His averments were altogether wrong and he did not suffer any financial loss due to any fault on their part. Objections about territorial jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 26.04.2016 and directed as under:-

“….we direct the opposite parties to refund the billing amount of Rs.47,249/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount shall fetch interest @ 9% p.a. from today till payment. The complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/- against the opposite parties.”

 

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP No.2 has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      As per impugned order dated 26.04.2016 it is clear that counsel for complainant admitted that vehicle was sold to some other person by complainant. When vehicle was already sold, complainant was not covered by the definition of consumer as per opinion of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expressed in Honda Cars India Ltd. Versus Jatinder Singh Madan & Anr., IV (2013) CPJ 258 (NC). Even otherwise the warranty was for the period of two years or 40000 kilometers whichever was earlier from the purchase of vehicle. When the vehicle was taken by complainant to workshop of OP No.1 it already covered 79484 kilometers. It shows that it was not covered by warranty and complainant was liable to pay for the repairs. Job card was prepared as per information supplied by complainant, but, when vehicle was properly inspected further problem was detected. So he was not entitled for the cost of repairs and compensation as prayed for. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect, so, impugned order dated 26.04.2016 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.  

 

 

Announced 13.04.2018

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member Addl. Bench

  D.R.