APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

In RP/3279/2013

In RP/3985/2013

PRONOUNCED ON : 4^th OCTOBER 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 166/2013, “Maruti Suzuki India Limited versus Jaswinder Singh & Anr.”, and in FA No. 104/2013, “Auto Pace Network Pvt. Limited vs. Jaswinder Singh & Anr.” vide which, the order dated 31.01.2013, passed by the District Forum-II, UT Chandigarh in consumer complaint No. 606/2011, filed by the present respondent No. 1 Jaswinder Singh, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Jaswinder Singh purchased a Maruti Suzuki A Star VXI vehicle, manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through OP-2 dealer, M/s. Auto Pace Network Private Limited, on 16.06.2011 for a sum of ₹3,61,736/- as ex-showroom price of the vehicle.  This amount paid by him included a sum of ₹2 lakh raised as loan from the State Bank of Patiala.  It has been alleged that from the very beginning, the complainant had been facing the problem of excessive engine vibration in the vehicle.  The vehicle was got serviced four times from the OP-2 dealer and every time, the fault was pointed out to the service Engineer who assured that the problem will get rectified after sometime.  The complainant was told by the service engineer of OP-2 that the excessive vibration could be due to problem in mounting arrangement of the engine.  The complainant made a complaint to the OP-1 manufacturer vide email dated 27.07.2011, which was duly acknowledged. As a consequence, the OP-2 dealer asked the complainant to bring the car to the workshop on 30.07.2011.  The Customer Care Manager told the complainant that the problem of excessive engine vibration was there in some of the A Star VXI models.  He was also told that the engine mounting will have to be changed and the said part would be available on 03.08.2011.  The said engine mounting was changed on 06.08.2011, but after travelling a few kilometres, the complainant again felt that the same problem was there.  He again requested the OPs, followed by reminders to take care of the problem.  However, despite making efforts by the technical personnel of the OP-2, the problem could not be solved.  The OPs tried to solve the problem by replacing engine mounting, cleaning of IC valve and finally replacing the IC valve, but there was no fruitful result.  Alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of ₹3,61,736/- as ex-showroom price of the vehicle together with money spent on road tax and insurance premium.  He also demanded a compensation of ₹50,000/- for mental harassment etc.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OP-1 Maruti Suzuki India Limited by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the OP-1 had discharged all their obligations under the warranty of the vehicle.  The vehicle had covered a distance of 26793 KM in just 16 months, which shows that the vehicle is in perfect road-worthy condition.  Whenever the vehicle was brought to the workshop for repairs, no abnormality was observed by the expert service engineer of the workshop.  The OP-2 Auto Pace Network Private Limited also filed a written statement before the District Forum, denying the allegation against them and stated that the design of the vehicle is approved by ARAI Pune, before the launch of the vehicle.  There was no defect in the vehicle and hence, the complaint should be dismissed.  The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, passed their order on 31.01.2013, as per which they directed as follows:-

“(a)   To take back the vehicle in question from the complainant and pay the invoice price of the vehicle less 20% depreciation applicable as per rules;

(b)     To pay ₹7335/- towards lump sum road tax and ₹6961/- towards insurance premium, paid by the complainant;

(c)     To pay ₹25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;

(d)     To pay ₹10,000/- as cost of litigation.”

4.       Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed before the State Commission – FA No. 166/2013 by the OP-1 manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki India Limited and the other FA No. 104/2013 filed by the OP-2 dealer, Auto Pace Network Pvt. Ltd.  Both these appeals were decided as per the impugned order dated 31.05.2013 and it was directed as follows:-

“i)      Respondent No. 1/complainant (in both the appeals), is directed to take the vehicle in question to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 2, dealer of Opposite Party No. 1, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

ii)      The appellants/ Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, in both the appeals, are jointly and severally directed to replace the engine of the vehicle, with a brand new, defect free one, under the supervision of panel of two experts, within a period of 20 days, from the date of receipt of the vehicle, from respondent No. 1/complainant, in the premises of Opposite Party No. 2, without charging any amount from him (complainant), and, thereafter, necessary documents be also issued by them, with regard to the engine number etc. etc.

iii)     After the replacement of engine of the car with a brand new, defect free one, the panel of experts aforesaid, shall submit their affidavits, to this Commission, within 20 days, that they had done the needful, as per Clause (ii) above.

iv)     The direction of the District Forum, holding Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2/appellants (in both the appeals), jointly and severally, liable to pay ₹25,000/-, on account of deficiency, in rendering service, and causing mental agony and physical harassment, shall remain intact.

v)      The direction of the District Forum holding Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2/appellant (in both the appeals), jointly and severally liable to pay cost of litigation to the tune of ₹10,000/- , shall also remain intact.

vi)     The amount of ₹25,000/- mentioned in Clause (iv) above, shall be paid by the appellants/opposite parties No. 1 and 2, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @9% P.A., from the date of default, till realisation.

vi)     The remaining directions given by the District Forum, subject to the modifications aforesaid, are set aside.”

5.       It is made out from above that the State Commission directed the OPs to replace the engine of the vehicle with a brand new defect-free engine under the supervision of a panel of two experts.  Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, both the OPs have challenged the same by way of the present revision petitions.

6.       During proceedings before this Commission, when the case was called on 03.08.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner/manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Limited, stated that they were prepared to carry out the necessary repairs in the vehicle and return the same with a certificate of their Head of Technical Wing, saying that the vehicle was in perfect road-worthy condition.  However, before doing that, they would like to inspect the vehicle.  Accordingly, the vehicle was inspected by the petitioner and they stated during hearing on 19.12.2016 that they shall repair the vehicle and provide the same to the complainant in a road-worthy condition alongwith the necessary certificate.  When the case was called for hearing on 15.05.2017, the learned counsel for Maruti Suzuki India Limited, apprised that they had carried out the necessary repairs in the vehicle, made it road-worthy and returned the same to the complainant.  The complainant who was present in person stated that he had received the vehicle duly repaired and that he was satisfied with the work done.  He, however, requested that the OPs must pay him some compensation, as he had been suffering at their hands for the last 6 years. 

7.       The arguments led by the counsel for the parties have been heard.  The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the vehicle had been duly attended to from time to time, whenever any problem was reported to them about the running of the vehicle.  They had now, repaired the vehicle and as per the affidavit of their Regional Technical Leader, Sh. Vidur Gupta, after carrying out service, there were no abnormality in the vehicle and it was defect-free and in a road-worthy condition.  The learned counsel stated that the vehicle remained in working condition throughout, as was clear from the mileage covered by the vehicle. 

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

9.       It is stated in the order passed by the District Forum that during proceedings before them, the vehicle was sent for an expert opinion to the Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, who constituted a committee of experts to examine the same.  The report made by the committee of experts, vide their Memo No. PEC/MED/2114 dated 22.09.2012 brings out clearly that the vehicle had excessive engine vibration during idling, which was not desirable.  Since the OPs were not able to solve the problem by replacement of engine mounting and intake Air valves, it was clear that the vehicle had some manufacturing defect.  The District Forum directed that the vehicle should be taken back by the OPs and its depreciated value should be paid back to the complainant.  In appeal, however, the State Commission modified the said order and directed to replace the engine of the vehicle with a new one under the supervision of two experts.  However, when the matter was pending before us in the shape of the present revision petitions, the petitioners did agree to get the vehicle repaired and return it in a road-worthy condition to the complainant alongwith certificate of their technical head.  We note with satisfaction that the petitioners did repair the vehicle and returned the same in a road-worthy condition to the complainant and an affidavit of their Regional Technical Head was also fled to the effect that the vehicle was in perfect road-worthy condition.  During hearing, when the complainant was specifically asked whether he had received the vehicle duly repaired, he categorically stated that he was satisfied with the repair work done.  It is evident, therefore, that the OPs made attempt to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant and they were successful in their task.  It is observed, however, that the OPs could have come forward in the very beginning when the consumer complaint was filed and should have taken care of the problem posed by the complainant, rather than indulge in avoidable litigation.  The present case is a vivid example as to how the consumer grievances and disputes could be effectively settled, rather than indulging in needless litigation, based on technicalities alone.

10.     From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant had to suffer for quite some time, seeking redressal of his genuine grievance.  Both the consumer fora below have allowed a sum of ₹25,000/- to him as compensation for mental harassment etc. and ₹10,000/- as cost of litigation.  We do feel that the directions to give compensation in terms of the orders of the consumer fora below are based on sound reasoning and logic.  It is directed, therefore, that the said compensation in terms of the orders of the Fora below shall be paid to the complainant within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the amounts shall entail interest @9% p.a. till the date of payment.  The revision petitions stand disposed off accordingly.  There shall be no order as to costs.