Kerala

StateCommission

A/4/2017

MARUTI SUSUKI VEHICLES - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAYAPRAKAS - Opp.Party(s)

JAYAPALMENON

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBERS 841/16 & 04/17

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED : 25.09.2019

 

(Appeals filed against the order in CC.No.108/2014 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT

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

SRI.RANJIT.R                           : MEMBER

 

APPEAL NUMBER 841/16

 

APPELLANT/ SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY

        Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, Perinthalmanna,

        Pin – 679 322

       

                (BY Adv.M/s.Sheriff Associates & Adv.Smt.Suja Madhav)

 

                                                VS

 

RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

1. Jayaprakash.K, “Aiswarya”, Kadungapuram.P.O

Angadipuram (Via), Malappuram District

Pin- 679 321

 

Rep.by the Power of attorney holder Malini,

•  

Puzhakkattiri village, Perinthalmanna Taluk,

Malappuram, Kerala

 

2.Maruti Suzuki Vehicles, Palam Gurgaon Road,

                Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 015

 

                                   (R1 party in person)

                                  

                                   APPEAL NUMBER 04/17

APPELLANT

 

Maruti Suzuki Vehicles, (Maruti Suzuki India Ltd) Palam Gurgaon Road, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 015

 

Having its Registered Office at

Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi – 110070

 

(By Adv.Sri.Jayabal Menon &

1.  

 

 

565.  

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Jayaprakash.K, “Aiswarya”, Kadungapuram.P.O

Angadipuram (via) Malappuram District

Pin-679321,

Power of Attorney holder, Malini, W/o.Jayaprakash.K,Kannamkuzhiyil House,

Puzhakkattiri village, Perinthalmanna Taluk,

Malappuram, Kerala

 

2. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd, Perinthalmanna,   Pin – 679 322

 

(R1 party in person)

COMMON JUDGMENT

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

            Both these appeals arose out of the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram, in short, the district forum in CC.No.108/2014 by which the opposite parties 1 & 2 were directed to replace the vehicle with a brand new vehicle to the complainant and if they are enable to replace the vehicle by any reason they shall pay Rs 7,00,000/- to the complainant as the price of the vehicle. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation and Rs 10,000/- as cost to the proceedings. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the second opposite party has filed the appeal no.841/16 and the first opposite party has filed the appeal no.4/17.

 

            2. The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. On 22.03.2014 the complainant purchased a RITZ VDI car paying Rs 6,42,000/-. The Registration No.of the vehicle is KL-53-G 766. At the time of delivery of the vehicle the reading in the speedo meter was 137 kilometers. On the glass of the vehicle the year noted was 2013, though the vehicle was 2014 model. Om 25.03.2014 while complainant was travelling in the car at Pariyapuram the car broke down. He tried his level best to start the car but the car did not move. The matter was intimated to Perinthalmanna show room of the opposite party and except an oral advice over phone to start the vehicle nobody reached the spot for repairing the vehicle. After repeated attempt made by complainant for hours the vehicle started. On the next day the vehicle was registered. On 31.03.2014 he went to Cannanore and on the way back to home again the vehicle broke down at Payyoli and by strenuous endeavor he started the vehicle and he reached at Perambra. Again the vehicle became defunct. Though message was given to nearby showrooms of the second opposite party, only at 7.30 p.m service persons reached the spot. They repaired the vehicle and complainant again started the vehicle. But on the way the vehicle stopped to function again and by the vehicle of the service men complainant and his family reached along with them in their show room at Calicut at 9.30 p.m. After entrusting the vehicle to them complainant and his family returned to the house. On the next day they informed the complainant that the fuel pump was defective and that was replaced and the defects were cured. After purchasing the vehicle, it broke down four times within a span of 10 days. So thinking that travelling in that vehicle is a risky affair, the complainant did not take the vehicle from the service centre. So the complainant requested to replace the vehicle and that was rejected by the opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle replaced and opposite party may be directed to Rs 25,000/- for the financial loss of the complainant and Rs 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony. Complainant also claimed Rs 7,00,000/- if the vehicle is not replaced and another amount of Rs 10,00,000/- for the financial, mental and bodily difficulties met by complainant.

                         3.            The first opposite party filed version stating as follows. The complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties. The sale of vehicle from the show room of opposite party no.2 does not relate to this opposite party and if any mistake is committed in selling, dealer has to reply. The relationship between this opposite party with selling dealer is that of Principal to Principal basis.  The complainant is not a consumer. The vehicle was sold and delivered to   complainant from the showroom of opposite party no.2 to the satisfaction of the complainant   and he received the vehicle    without any protest.   This opposite party is the   manufacturer and proper warranty was given to all vehicles. What is stated in the complaint is incorrect and a fabricated story. It is false to say that the vehicle was repaired 4 times within a span of 10 days. The vehicle was attended by opposite party no.2 on 31.03.2014 under warranty. After the first free service of the vehicle on 09.04.2014 the complainant did not report any problem and periodic maintenance schedule was carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant. On 07.05.2014 the complainant executed a satisfaction note infavour opposite party no.2. There was no abnormality in the performance of the vehicle and it was found defect free. This complaint is filed for undue gain. No financial loss or mental agony was made by the act of this opposite party. The manufacturer is responsible only for replacing the defective parts of the body. Complainant is not entitled to get the vehicle replaced. There was no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and the complaint is to be dismissed. Opposite party no.2 filed version stating as follows. It is true that the complainant had purchased a maruthi Ritz vdi car from this opposite party on 22.03.2014. But it is false to say that he was given 2013 model vehicle. The complainant purchased the vehicle after understanding the details of the vehicle, its warranty and services. It is also incorrect to say that the vehicle broke down at Angadipuram on 25.03.2014 and that matter was intimated to opposite party ad he did not get any help from the opposite parties. This opposite party has no information regarding the incident happened on 25.03.2014. On 31.03.2014 the complainant intimated to this opposite party that the vehicle broke down at Perambra and a helpline team of this opposite party was sent to the place and vehicle was taken to opposite party at Calicut and a vehicle was provided for the journey of complainant and his family to their house at Angadipuram. When the complainant produced the vehicle in the service centre of this opposite party at Malappuram for check up, the complainant was directed to entrust the vehicle to the company of this opposite part for replacing pressure fuel pump. But the complainant did not obey the directions and drove the vehicle continuously and thus it again broke down at Kunnamkulam and the vehicle was repaired in the service centre of the opposite party at Kunnamkulam and it was taken to the house of complainant by the opposite party. This damage was caused on account of non replacement of the pressure fuel pump as suggested by this opposite party. Again this opposite party intimated the complainant that the pressure fuel pump is to be replaced and for that the vehicle should be taken from the custody of the complainant and till the repairing is completed for the journey of complainant a Swift Dezire Car would be given to the complainant. Then the diesel pump of the vehicle was replaced free of cost. Still the complainant refused to take the vehicle from the opposite party and the vehicle given by the opposite party to the complainant for the journey was not returned by him. There after complainant filed this complaint. As per the provisions contained in the owners manual the opposite party is liable to replace the damaged part alone. The replacement of the vehicle on that ground cannot be done. The necessary services and repairs were given to the vehicle without imposing any charge. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. After replacing the diesel pump no defects were noted for the vehicle. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

           

            4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on his side. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed the district forum the opposite parties had preferred the present appeals.

 

            5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

            6. There is no dispute to the fact that on 22.03.2014 the complainant purchased RITZ car from second opposite party, manufactured by the first opposite party paying Rs 6,42,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that within a period of one month he has to take the car to the second opposite party several times since the car stopped suddenly while traveling in the car and sine it got starting trouble. The complainant thinking that travelling in the said vehicle is a risky affair, did not take the vehicle from the service centre and he requested them to replace the vehicle and it was rejected by the opposite parties. It is also alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties had given him a 2013 model car representing that it was of 2014 model. The district forum noted that in Ext.A9 the year of manufacturer of the vehicle is stated as 2013. The definite case of the opposite parties is that the vehicle sold to the complainant was 2014 model. But the district forum found that the opposite parties sold the vehicle of 2013 model to the complainant representing that it was of 2014 model. The district forum considered that Exts.A3  to A6 & A8 and found that the successive defects of the vehicle inspite of thorough check up made by the service experts of the second opposite party would show their deficiency in service and at the same time the successive defects of the vehicle also indicate manufacturing defect. The district forum found that the opposite parties gave an old model vehicle to the complainant misrepresenting that it was a new model vehicle and within few days the vehicle began to manifest its defects one by one and the opposite parties failed to cure the defects effectively and the opposite parties are found to be deficinet in service and engaged in unfair trade practice. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the district forum that there was manufacturing defect to the vehicle is not correct. It is contended by the second opposite party that they have no information regarding the alleged incident happened on 25.03.2014, when the vehicle alleged to have broke down at Angadipuram. On 31.03.2014 the complainant intimated the second opposite party  that the vehicle broke down at Perampra and help line team of the opposite party was sent to the place and vehicle was taken to the company of the opposite party at Calicut and a vehicle was provided for the journey of the complainant and his family to their house at Angadipuram. When the complainant produced the vehicle in the service centre of the opposite party at Malappuram for checkup, the complainant was directed to entrust the vehicle to the company for replacing the Pressure Fuel Pump. But the complainant did not obey the directions and drove the vehicle continuously and thus it again broke down at Kunnamkulam and the vehicle was repaired in the service centre of the opposite party at kunnamkulam and it was taken to the house of the complainant. That damage was caused on account of the non replacement of the Pressure Fuel Pump as suggested by the opposite party. Again the second opposite party intimated the complainant that the Pressure Fuel Pump is to be replaced and for that the vehicle could be taken from the custody of the complainant and till the repairing is completed for the journey of the complainant as Swift Desire Car will be given to the complainant. The complainant entrusted the vehicle and the second opposite party had given him a car for his use till the repairing is completed. Later the Fuel Pressure Pump was replaced. But the complainant refused to take the vehicle and thereafter filed the complaint. From Ext.A5 dated 29.04.2014 it can be seen that the vehicle was brought by the complainant to the second opposite party for ‘general check up’. In the column ‘recommendation’, it is written as ‘Need to replace High Pressure Fuel Pump, but the customer was not willing to do the work’. PW1 admitted that he did not give consent for the replacement of Fuel Pressure Pump and he wanted the replacement of the vehicle itself. PW1 admitted the second opposite party had provided him a car for his use till the repair work of his car was over. PW1 deposed that on 01.05.2014 he got intimation from the second opposite party that the repair work of the car was over, but he did not take the car from the second opposite party. On 05.05.2014he filed complaint before the forum and on 07.05.2014 he had taken the car from the second opposite party. From the documents produced by the parties, it can be seen that the second opposite party had replaced the Fuel Pressure Pump of the car, free of cost. From the documents produced by the parties it can be seen that the only repair work done to the car of the complainant was the replacement of the Fuel Pressure Pump. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the district forum did not consider the fact that after the replacement of the Fuel Pump the complainant had taken back the vehicle and after that he had been using the vehicle and he has no complaint regarding the car. From the documents produced by the parties it can be seen that there is some basis for the contention of the second opposite party that if the complainant had accepted the suggestion of the second opposite party to replace the Fuel Pressure Pump, the subsequent break down of the car would have been averted the counsels for the appellant submitted that the district forum did not consider the fact that the subsequent the replacement of the Fuel Pressure Pump the vehicle has been running to the satisfaction of the complainant without any defect. The complainant was examined as PW1 in September 2015. PW1 deposed that he has received the car from the second opposite party after effecting the repairs on 07.05.2014 and thereafter he had been using the car. PW1 deposed that he came to the district forum to give deposition on that day by that car. PW1 deposed that even after the replacement of the Fuel Pressure Pump of his car there were complaints to the car but the complainant has not produced any document to show that any repair works were done to the car by the second opposite party or in any other workshop. So from the evidence it can be seen that the only defect to the car was regarding the functioning of the Fuel Pressure pump and the second opposite party replaced the pressure fuel pump, free of cost and the complainant had taken back the vehicle from the second opposite party. In Ext.B6 it is stated by the complainant that he had taken back the vehicle from second opposite party on 07.05.2014 and the service team of the second opposite party attended the complaint of the vehicle and it was rectified. Even though PW1 deposed that even after the repair works carried out by the second opposite party on 07.05.2014, there are defects / complaints to the vehicle, he has not produced any document to show that any repair works were carried out to the car either at the service centre of the second opposite party or in any other workshop. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 22.03.2014. The second opposite party replaced the Fuel Pressure Pump of the car and the complainant had taken back the car from the second opposite party on 07.05.2014. There after he had been using the car. The district forum passed the order on 07.09.2016. The district forum failed to consider the fact that subsequent to the replacement of the Pressure Fuel Pump the car has been running as per the satisfaction of the complainant and even though PW1 deposed that even after the repair works done by the second opposite party on 07.05.2014, there are some defects/ complaints to the vehicle, he has not adduced any evidence in support of his contentions. Without considering these aspects, the district forum found that the successive defects of the vehicle indicate manufacturing defect and directed the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle or to pay Rs 7,00,000/- to the complainant, price paid by him for purchasing the vehicle, which is not sustainable.

 

            7. It is the case of the complainant that on perusal of the registration certificate of the car he came to know that the opposite parties gave him the car of 2013 model misrepresenting that it was of 2014 model. In Ext.A9 Registration certificate it is stated that the vehicle was manufactured in December 2013. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 22.03.2014. The specific case of the opposite parties is that the vehicle sold to the complainant was 2014 model. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the district forum failed to consider Ext.B10 and on the basis of Ext.A9 came to the conclusion that the opposite parties sold the vehicle of the 2014 model to the complainant misrepresenting that it was of the year 2014. It is the case of the opposite parties that by mistake in Ext.A9, RTO entered the year of manufacturing as 2013 instead of 2014. In Ext.A10 is the copy of the letter dated 26.02.2014 addressed to the Transport Commissioner, Transport Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram sent by the Regional Manager of the Maruti Suzuki, Kerala regarding 2014 model year registration – Chasis No. cut off details and Nomen Clature for Maruti Suzuki Passenger car Models. Ext.B10 contain the endorsement by the Joint Transport Commissioner that copy forwarded to all DTCs, RTOs and JRTs for information and necessary action and also to take note that 19^th digit in the Chasis No ‘E’ Stands for the manufacturing year 2014. From Ext.A9 it can be seen that the 19^th Digit of the Chassis No of the car given to the complainant is ‘E’. Ext.B10 is a photocopy. The opposite parties ought to have taken steps to produce the original or certified copy of Ext.B10 from the RT Office and to examine the proper authority to prove Ext.B10. Further DW2 deposed that they had submitted the documents and done all the matters for the registration of the vehicle in the RT office. If that be so if the case of the opposite parties that by mistake in Ext.A9 RTO entered the year of manufacturing as 2013 instead of 2014 is true, they would have taken steps to correct the year of the manufacture of the vehicle as 2014 in Ext.A9. In these circumstances on the basis of Ext.B10 it is not possible to conclude that in Ext.A9 the year of manufacture of the vehicle was mistakenly entered as 2013 instead of 2014, and it is not sufficient to cast suspicion on the entries made in Ext.A9. In these circumstances, as held by the District forum is has to be found that the vehicle sold to the complainant by the opposite parties was manufactured in 2013 and it was given to the complainant by the opposite parties by misrepresenting that it was of the year 2014. So, as found by the district forum the misrepresentation made by the second opposite party who is the agent of the first opposite party amounts to unfair practice. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 22.03.2014 believing the words of the   opposite parties that it was of the year 2014. As per Ext.A9 the vehicle was manufactured in December 2013. So the difference is only three months, even though there is difference of one year, if the year of manufacture is considered. So there may not have much difference in the price of the vehicle, since there is only difference of three months. Further the complainant had been using the vehicle from the date of purchase, in March 2014. As stated above, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the vehicle has got any serious defect/ complaint after it was taken from the second opposite party by the complainant, after its repair, on 07.05.2014. The district forum without considering these aspects directed the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new model vehicle or to give Rs 7,00,000/- to the complainant, which is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. We do so.

 

            8. The complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused to him due to the acts of the opposite parties. The district forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation and Rs 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Considering the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that compensation ordered by the District forum is to be enhanced to Rs 1,00,000/-. The cost ordered by the district forum is just and reasonable and hence no interference is called for regarding the cost ordered by the district forum. So the order passed by the district forum is to be modified, as stated above. We find just and reasonable to vacate the order of the district forum directing the opposite parties to pay interest in case of default of payment of the amount within 30 days from the date of the copy of the order.

 

            In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The Order passed by the District forum is modified as follows: The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The Order passed by the district forum directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a brand new model vehicle or if the opposite parties are unable to replace the vehicle by any reason, they shall pay Rs 7,00,000/- to the complainant is set aside.

 

            Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

                 In both appeals, the appellants / opposite parties 1 & 2 had deposited Rs 25,000/- each at the time of filing of the appeal. The first respondent / complainant in both appeals are permitted to obtain release of the said amount on filing proper application, to be adjusted and credited towards the amounts ordered as above. The appellants / opposite parties shall pay the balance amount within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the amount, till realization.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT.R                         :MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BE/

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBERS 841/16 & 04/17

COMMON JUDGMENT

 DATED : 25.09.2019