KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NOS..449/2015 &  559/2015

 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED :  05.04.2018

(AppealS filed against the order in CC.No.159/2011 on the file of CDRF,  Malappuram, order dated : 23.02.2015 )

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN         : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 449/2015

APPELLANTS

1.  Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanthkunj,

New Delhi-110070

2.  Mr.Pankaj Narula,

Executive Director (Service),

Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

Palam, Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon, Haryana

By Advocate Sri.Jayabal Menon

RESPONDENTS 

1.  Fahad M., S/o Abdul Majeed,

Madayi House, Achipilakkal,

Karuvambram P.O,

Manjeri, Malappuram Dist. 676 123

2.  The General Manager,

Popular Vehicles & Service Ltd.,

Wayanad Road, Civil Station P.O,

Pin-673 020, Kozhikkode

3. The General Manager,
4.  

Varangode, Down Hill,

Malappuram-676 519

APPEAL NO. 559/2015

APPELLANT

          The General Manager, Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,        Wynad Road, Civil Station P.O, Pin-673 020, Kozhikkode

                   By Advocate Sindhu S.Pillai

RESPONDENTS

1.  Ms/ Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Rep. by its regional officer, Jeevan Prakash, II Floor, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. M/s Pankaj Narula, C.G.M, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam Gurgaon-122015, State of Haryana
3. The General Manager, A.M.Motors, Varangode, Down Hill, Malappuram 676 519
4. Fahad.M, S/oAbdul Majeed, Achipilakkal, Karuvambram, Manjeri, Malappuram-676 123

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

These two appeals arise from the Order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram for short “District Forum” in C.C.No.159/11 directing opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) jointly to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the Order  Appeal No.449/2015 is by the second and 3^rd opposite parties and appeal No.559/2015, by the first opposite party.

2.  When the appeals came up for hearing appellants alone appeared and in appeals notice was served on the respondent, but, he has elected to remain absent.  We heard counsel for appellants in both the appeals.

3.  Case of the complainant in short was that a Maruti car  purchased by him, manufactured by second opposite party through its dealer first opposite party, had several manufacturing defects. Even during the warranty period for replacement of a turbo cooler a sum of Rs.12000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand) was collected from him illegally was his further case.  He sought for replacement of the  vehicle by a new vehicle or refund of the price paid.  Opposite parties filing separate versions disputing the claim of the applicant contended that the vehicle was purchased on 14.08.2009, that it was extensively used  by the complainant for his commercial purposes, that the complaint was filed at a time when the vehicle had covered more than 70000 kilimetres, and that too after availing all free services provided, during which period he had no complaint of any manufacturing defects of the vehicle.

4.  The evidence consisted of the testimony of complainant as PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A13.  No evidence was adduced by opposite parties. We have perused the available records in the case.

5. We notice that complainant examined as PW.1 has categorically admitted that he had no receipt to evidence collection of Rs.12000/- as extra charges from him for replacing the  turbo cooler.  He would also further concede that the vehicle covered 4000 to 5000 Kilometres every month.  He has not produced any material to show that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect.  No expert commission was taken to assess whether the vehicle had any manufacturing defect.  While availing free services also  complainant, admittedly, did not follow the warranty conditions, and that is conceded by him. Despite noticing all these facts the lower forum awarded him compensation solely for the reason that during the warranty period some defects to his vehicle occurred and the vehicle was presented for repair before the opposite party’s workshop.  It is also found that collection of repair charges during warranty period, which according to the forum, was a deficiency in service. The reasons arrived at by the lower forum to award compensation are patently erroneous and unsustainable.  Naturally the vehicle is  machine driven and in all possibilities some curable and incurable defects may occur while it is plyed on the road. During the warranty period subject to the terms specified the manufacturer has to replace the parts and cure the defects. What are the defects for which the vehicle was produced for  repair and whether any excess sum was collected violating the terms of warranty are not  brought out by the complainant. When that be so, to grant compensation simply for the reason that his vehicle had some defects during the warranty period and it was produced for repair at the workshop is wrong. Similarly the finding on deficiency of  service alleging collection of repair charges by the opposite parties which is unsupported by any evidence, is erroneous.

6.  The Order of the Forum is liable to be set aside. We do so.

In the result, both appeals are allowed setting aside the Order of the lower forum and dismissing the complaint C.C.159/2011 on the file of lower forum.  Parties are directed to suffer their costs.  The sum deposited in the appeals for entertaining the appeals is ordered to be refunded to the respective appellants.

          JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN         : PRESIDENT

          T.S.P.MOOSATH                                     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          V.V.JOSE                                                 : MEMBER