APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON : 16^th NOVEMBER 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 28.08.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in two First Appeals, i.e., FA No. 1568/2006, filed by the petitioner, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and FA No. 1585/2006 fled by M/s. Mithra Agencies, against the order dated 10.10.2006, passed by the District Forum-I, Krishna at Vijayawada in consumer complaint CD No. 203/2003.

2.       The consumer complaint CD No. 203/2003 was filed by four complainants, namely, Dr. Koneru Satya Kishore (Dr. K.S. Kishore), K. Rajani, his wife and K. Harita and K. Susmita, his daughters against the opposite party (OP-1) Mithra Agencies, the dealer and the OP-2 Maruti Udyog Limited (now known as Maruti Suzuki India Limited).  It was stated that the complainant No. 1, Dr. K.S. Kishore purchased an Alto LX 800 car on 10.01.2003 for ₹3,30,710/- from the dealer OP-1, the Mithra Agencies, manufactured by the OP-2 Maruti Udyog Limited.  It was alleged in the said complaint that the said car was giving trouble in the shape of intermittent jerky running in second, third and fourth gear positions and a harsh noise from gear box assembly system.  The complainant No. 1 contacted the OP-1 dealer, where he was told by the Works Manager on 13.01.2003 that the problem was trivial and could be rectified at the time of first free service inspection.  However, the defects in the vehicle could not be removed despite several visits to the workshop of the OP-1 dealer, although they made efforts to remove such defects.  The complainant has given a complete narration about his visits to the OP-1 dealer from time to time, and the interaction he had with them, including the exchange of various letters.  The complainant, therefore, demanded the refund of the purchase amount of the car from the OPs and issued a legal notice to them to that effect.  Thereafter, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of the amount of ₹3,30,710/-, i.e., the purchase price of the car alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of purchase till realisation and a compensation of ₹10 lakh for mental harassment etc. 

3.       The OP-1 dealer filed their written version, saying that there was no defect in the car or its engine and that the noise as alleged by the complainant could be due to defective driving.  There was no deficiency in service on their part. 

4.       The OP-2 manufacturer also filed a reply, saying that there was no breach on their part in providing service as per the terms of the warranty.  The consumer complaint in question should therefore, be dismissed. 

5.       The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed both the OPs to pay a sum of ₹3,30,710/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 27.12.2002, i.e., the date of remitting the amount to the OPs till payment and in addition, to pay a compensation of ₹25,000/- and ₹2,000/- as cost of litigation.  The District Forum observed that within a few days of the purchase of a brand new car, the complainants were forced to leave the car at the service station of the OP-1, as they failed to carry out the necessary repairs in the car and since then, the car was lying at that place.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP-1 dealer as well as the OP-2 manufacturer filed appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/OP-2, but allowed the appeal filed by the OP-1 dealer.  Vide impugned order dated 28.08.2007, the State Commission directed that the petitioner/OP-2 manufacturer only, was required to pay the amount of ₹3,30,710/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 27.12.2002 till realisation.  The direction to pay compensation of ₹25,000/- was set aside, but the direction to pay ₹2,000/- as litigation cost was confirmed.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, two revision petitions were filed before this Commission – RP No. 419/2008 was filed by the complainants, while RP No. 3798/2007 was filed by the OP-2 manufacturer.

6.       RP No. 419/2008 filed by the complainants was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 03.03.2008.  It was stated in the said order that looking at the alleged manufacturing defect and the findings in the impugned order, there was no force in the revision petition filed by the complainants for proceeding against the dealer, or for further enhancement of the compensation. 

7.       RP No. 3798/2007, however, has since remained pending and is being decided now.  The learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-2 and the learned counsel for the dealer/respondent No. 5/OP-1 have been heard.  On behalf of the complainants/respondents No. 1 to 4, written replies have been filed and the same have been duly taken into consideration, while disposing off this petition. 

8.       The learned counsel for the petitioner/OP-2 manufacturer stated that the defects pointed out by the complainants from time to time had been duly attended to by the OP-1 dealer.  However, the complainants had deliberately left the car at the workshop of the OP-1 dealer and never took it back.  The learned counsel stated that the defects in the vehicle had not been proved on record by any evidence.  The order passed by the consumer fora below deserved to be set aside.  In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar [AIR 2006 SC 1586]” and the order passed by this Commission in “Sushila Automobiles Private Limited vs. Dr. B.N. Prasad in RP no. 1652/2006, decided on 07.05.2010,” and another order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “C.N. Anantharam vs. Fiat India Limited [2010 (8) Supreme 122]”.  The learned counsel stated that even if a manufacturing defect was established, the replacement of the defective part only is called for.  Moreover, it was the duty of the complainants to prove by cogent/credible evidence supported by an expert opinion that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect.

9.       The learned counsel for the dealer/respondent No. 5/OP-1 stated that they had carried out the necessary repairs in the vehicle from time to time and had also given extra warranty for the same. 

10.     In their written submissions filed by the complainants, it has been stated that since the other petition, RP No. 419/2008 filed by them had already been decided by this Commission on 03.03.2008, the validity of the impugned order could not be adjudicated again in the present revision petition on the principle of resjudicata.  It was the duty of the petitioner to have raised all the issues at the time of disposal of RP No. 419/2008.  It is also stated that the scope of interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269]”.  The said powers could be exercised only, if there was any material defect or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below. The present revision petition should, therefore, be ordered to be dismissed.

11.     We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

12.     The first issue that merits consideration in the matter is whether the order dated 03.03.2008, passed by this Commission in RP No. 419/2008, filed by the complainants/respondents No. 1 to 4, has any bearing on the outcome of the present case.  The complainants/respondents No. 1 to 4 have taken the plea that the validity of the impugned order, passed by the State Commission has already been upheld by this Commission vide order dated 03.03.2008 and hence, the present petition deserves dismissal.  They also stated that on the principle of ‘resjudicata’, the present revision petition is not maintainable.  However, we are not inclined to agree with the said view taken by the complainants/respondents No. 1 to 4 in their written submissions made in the present revision petition.  The revision petition No. 419/2008 was filed by the complainants, seeking enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the consumer fora below and also for holding the dealer liable for deficiency in service.  Vide 03.03.2008, the said petition was dismissed.  However, the position in that case does not affect the decision in the present revision petition, which has been filed by the OP-2 manufacturer, seeking relief to exonerate them from the allegations levelled in the complaint.  This revision petition has, therefore, to be decided separately.  

13.     The next question that merits consideration in the matter is whether the impugned order of the State Commission, directing the petitioner/OP-2 to pay the price of the car alongwith interest etc. is valid in the eyes of law or not.  A perusal of the detailed account given by the complainants in the consumer complaint indicates that the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer on a number of occasions with complaints of intermittent jerks, running and harsh noise from the gear-box assembly system.  It has come on record that the dealer made efforts to remove the defects, but the vehicle could not be made free from such defects.  It has been stated in the written reply filed by the petitioner/OP-2 also that the OP-1 dealer replaced certain parts in the vehicle to remove defects in the same.  The contention raised by the petitioner that there was no inherent defect, pertaining to noise in the gear box, cannot be accepted, because a consumer cannot be expected to take the vehicle to the workshop on a number of occasions, unless there are defects in the said vehicle. 

14.     In so far as the plea whether the defects pointed out in the vehicle come under the category of manufacturing defect or not, the matter has been considered by this Commission in a number of cases, and it has been held that a ‘defect’ in a vehicle may come under the category of ‘manufacturing defect’ or otherwise, a vehicle is said to be suffering from ‘defect’, if there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any law in force.  We are supported in this view in an earlier judgment of this Commission, delivered in, Revision Petition No. 7/2013, Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sunanda Sangwan, decided on 20.09.2013. Although the petitioner/manufacturer has taken the plea that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and hence, they had no liability in the matter, but considering the view taken in the orders quoted above, it is very clear that the vehicle did suffer from ‘defects’, as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time.

15.     It would be seen from above that whether the ‘defect’ in the vehicle qualified to be called a ‘manufacturing defect’ or not, it was the duty of the opposite parties to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to the complainants in a road-worthy condition.  From the facts and circumstances on record, it is made out that the petitioner/OP-2 failed in the task to provide the vehicle in a road-worthy condition to the complainants.  We have no reasons to differ with the State Commission in the impugned order that the dealer did carry out repairs in the vehicle as per the job cards, but was not able to remove the defects in the vehicle and hence, the entire liability to pay the amount in question falls on the petitioner/OP-2 only.  It is held, therefore, that there is no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld.  The present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed, being without any force.  There shall be no order as to costs.