1.      The present Revision Petition  filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 10.04.2018, passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’) in FA No.325 of 2016 wherein the learned State Commission dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (“District Forum”) in C.C. No.255 of 2012.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as per complaint before the District Forum. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is Petitioner/OP-1. Jayender is denoted as Respondent No.1/ Complainant, Apra Auto(I) P. Ltd is referred as Respondent No.2/ OP-2 and Vipul Motors Ltd is denoted as Respondent No.3/ OP-3.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Maruti Ritz VD1 BS IV car registration No. HR-36-Q-0448 from Opposite Party (OP) No.3, Vipul Motor Pvt. Ltd., on 28.02.2011 for Rs. 5,20,322/-. Soon after its purchase he noticed that the mileage of the car was very poor and the engine oil consumption was high due to a manufacturing defect. Specifically, the engine oil was consumed after the car had completed only 4000-5000 KM. Whereas, according to the norms and conditions, engine oil should be changed only after the completion of 10,000 KM. Despite attempts to resolve the issue, the fault could not be removed by the OPs, who indicated that it was a manufacturing defect, and the car engine needed to be replaced.  As a result, he filed this complaint before the District Forum seeking replacement with a new one or refund of its price, with interest @ 24% per annum, along with compensation.

4.      In reply, OP-1 averred that the Complainant is not a consumer. The mileage/average of the vehicle is as per ARAI certification under Section 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and the vehicles manufactured by the OP are fuel-efficient and give good mileage. The mileage of the vehicle depends on several factors, including driving habits, gear change pattern, usage of AC, air pressure in the tyres, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance of the vehicle, and road conditions. Normal services of the vehicle were carried out as per periodic maintenance, and the vehicle was found to be defect-free and in perfect condition. The Complainant is using the vehicle extensively for commercial purposes, which requires additional maintenance and proper care at regular intervals. All other contents have been denied with a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.      In reply, OP-2 contended that the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant from OP-3 and any warranty and liability, if any, is provided by OP-1. OP-2 organized a free car check-up camp and has no liability in this matter.

6.      In reply, OP-3 contended that the warranty period of the vehicle is two years, not three years. However, there is an extended warranty for an additional one year. The Complainant got the first service done at Fortune Cars Bhiwadi and the second and third servicing at Apra Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd. He visited OP-3 for the first time only on 26.08.2011 for a free check-up and did not complain about engine oil issues until 23.09.2011 during a paid service. All checks were carried out, and all vehicle performance parameters were found to be normal. During the paid service, the engine oil was replaced, and he was advised to bring the vehicle back for checking the engine oil level after running 2000 KM, but the vehicle never returned. No further communication was received from the Complainant, either verbally, in writing, or by email. All other contents have been denied with a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 24.02.2016, allowed the complaint and directed the OP1 as follows:

 “6)     In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the present complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no.1 to refund the price of the car i.e. Rs.5,20,322/- to the complainant with interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till payment maximum within a period of one month subject to the deposit of old car by the complainant. The complainant is also allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment alongwith the litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs.5500/- against the opposite parties.  Ordered accordingly.”

8.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP1 filed an Appeal and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 10.04.2018 dismissed the Appeal with following observations:

“5, Arguments heard. File perused.

6 Learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.1 vehemently argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was brought to workshop for routine services and till then vehicle covered 53191 Kilometers. There was no complaint about oil grounds of appeal. Routine service is no ground to presume that there was any manufacturing defect.  In support of his argument he has placed reliance upon Maruti Udyog Ltd, Versus Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another, (2006) 4 SCC 644.

7. This argument is no avail. From the chart reproduced in the grounds of appeal, it is clear that this vehicle was taken to the workshop, of OP No.2 i.e. Apra Auto (India) Pvt. Limited for 12 times within one month and every time low average was reported which is also clear from the perusal of job cards (Exhibit C-4 to C-10). Even otherwise as per expert opinion (Exhibit C-17), it is clear that engine of the car was overhauled after the coverage of 28000 Kilometers because the same was consuming more oil. It is also mentioned, in this, report that it appeared to be manufacturing defect. Appellant/OP No.1 did not controvert this report in any manner. So it can be safely presumed that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle and complainant was entitled for the relief prayed for. These views are also fortified by Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in G.N. Anantharam Versus Fiat India Ltd., 2011(1) SCC 460, Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expressed in Maman Chand Versus Maruti Udyog Limited and others, 2016(2) C.P.R. 877 and Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expressed in Jugnu Dhillon Versus Reliance Digital Retail Ltd, and Ors., 2014(1) CLT 588. Appellant/OP No.1 cannot derive any benefit in that case only one part was defective and there was no expert report.

8. As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order dated 24.02.2016 cannot be set aside. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.”

9.      The learned Counsel for Petitioner/OP-1 reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the State Commission has premised its finding of manufacturing defect on subject car recording 12 visits in a month and the same is manifestly perverse. The visits as may be emphasized were recording by the car over a period of 12 months than one month which the State Commission caused to hold.  He further contended that the impugned order did not appreciate the virtual impossibility for the vehicle to foster such operation under event of a defect, inherent or otherwise. The vehicle had in fact done 140720 KM as on date of its last recorded visit on 28.05.2016. He further argued that the consumption of engine-oil is the normal and usual incident of a car’s operation. He sought to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the concurrent finding of the Fora below. He has relied upon the following judgments:

A. S. Suncon Realtors P. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nissan Motor Company & Ors. FA No.1744 of 2019, decided on 29.08.2019 by the NCDRC;

B. Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine NCDRC 74;

C.  Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs. Surbhi Gupta & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 487;

D. Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr., I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC);

E. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. B.G. Thakurdesai & Anr., II (1993) CPJ 225 (NC);

F. Sushila Automobile P. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 144;

G.  M/s.Toyota Kirloskar Motor P. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bamal & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1620;

H.  Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709;

I.  Swaraj Mazda Vs PK chakkappore, MANU/CF/0296/ 2003;

J.  Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra, (2006) 4 SCC 644.

10.    On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/ Complainant reiterated the facts of the case and argued that as per expert report Ex.C-17, it is clear that the engine of the car was overhauled after 28015 KM. After that the same vehicle was consuming high engine oil.  The expert opinion is authentic proof.  He argued in favour of the concurrent finding of both the Fora below.  He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with costs.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

A. For India Private Ltd. Vs. M/s. Medical Eleborate Concept Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.4192-4194/2023 decided on 05.07.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

B.  C.N. Anantharam Vs. M/s. Fiat India Ltd. & Ors., SLP (c) Nos.21178-21180 of 2009, decided on 24.11.2010 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11.  Respondent No.2-Apra Auto (I) Ltd. has been deleted vide order dated 11.07.2023 passed by this Commission. Respondent No.3-Vipul Motors P Ltd was proceeded ex-parte vide order on 10.04.2024.

12.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for parties.

13.    It is undisputed that the complainant purchased Maruti Ritz VD1 BS IV car Regn No. HR-36-Q-0448 from OP-3 on 28.02.2011 for Rs.5,20,322/-. The car had some servicing issues from the beginning and the main complaint of the complainant is that the mileage of the car was very poor and engine oil consumption was high. This he asserted as manufacturing defect as the engine oil got exhausted within 4000-5000 KM of usage as against 10,000 KM. Despite multiple attempts OPs could not fix the problem and indicated that it was a manufacturing defect, and the car engine needed to be replaced.  As a result, he filed this complaint before the District Forum seeking replacement with a new one or refund of its price, with interest @ 24% per annum, along with compensation. It is the assertion of the OP-1 that the mileage of the vehicle is as per ARAI certification and the cars manufactured by OP are fuel-efficient and give good mileage. The mileage of a car depends on driving habits, gear change pattern, usage of AC, tyre pressure, traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance etc. As per periodic checks, the vehicle was found defect-free and in perfect condition. The complainant used the car extensively, including for commercial purposes.         He visited OP-3 for the first time only on 26.08.2011 for a free check-up and did not complain about engine oil issues until 23.09.2011. All checks were carried out, and all vehicle performance parameters were found to be normal. During a paid service, engine oil was replaced, and he was advised to bring the car for checking the engine oil level after running 2000 KM, but the vehicle never returned. It is the contention of OP that the State Commission premised its finding of manufacturing defect as the car recorded 12 visits in a month. The same is manifestly perverse. The visits were in fact over a period of 12 months. The vehicle had in fact done 140720 KM as recorded on last visit on 28.05.2016. The consumption of engine-oil is the normal and usual incident of a car’s operation. Whereas it is the assertion of the complainant that the expert report is clear as regards the excessive consumption of engine oil and the engine of the car was overhauled after 28015 KM. He reiterated the persisting problem of consuming high engine oil and the expert opinion is authentic proof. He vehemently argued in favour of the concurrent finding of both Fora.

14.    It is a matter of record that on 27.08.2014, the learned District Forum directed for examination of the car in question by the Works Manager, Haryana Transport Department, Rewari. Accordingly, the car was inspected on 17.09.2014. The report dated 19.09.2014 revealed:

“As per order no.10 dated 27.08,2014 of your office, one Maruti Ritz V.D.IB.S.IV No. HR 36Q 0448 was mechanically inspected on 17.09.2014 by Workshop Manager, Haryana State Transport, Rewari. The mechanical inspection report is as under:

The engine of this car was overhauled by the agency after running 28 thousand kilometers because the engine was consuming excess Mobil oil. It appears that there was manufacturing defect in the engine and the engine is still consuming excess of mobile oil. It would be appropriate to explain here that a letter was sent to the concerned firms by registered post to be present at the time of mechanical inspection of the car but nobody appeared on behalf of the concerned firms at the time of mechanical inspection.”

15.    It is uncontested position that the vehicle was driven for 140720 KM as recorded on 28.05.2016. The complainant asserted excessive consumption of engine oil and that the car engine was overhauled after 28015 KM. The learned State Commission considered this to be a case of manufacturing defect, as the car recorded 12 visits in one month, while it was in fact over a period of one year. The opinion of the expert in the report has been considered. At the same time, it is clear that within a period of about 5 years and 3 months, the car had done 1,40,720 KM, which is substantial. If the car had any other issues other than excessive consumption of engine oil, such usage was unlikely. The issues pertaining to milage have been addressed by the OPs. Thus, the excessive consumption of engine oil notwithstanding, directing for replacement of the car which has already been used for over 1,40,000 KM verges to being unjust and excessive relief. Therefore, I do not agree with the orders of learned District Forum and the learned State Commission in this regard. At the same time, it is also clear that the vehicle had problems of excessive consumption of engine oil and that the car engine was overhauled after 28015 KM. Therefore, the deficiency in service on this account is established and the complainant is entitled for appropriate relief.

16.    In view of the foregoing, the order of the learned State Commission dated 10.04.2018 is set aside and the order of the District Forum 24.02.2016 is modified as follows:

I.  The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000 to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, interest @ 9% shall be paid on the said amount for such extended period.

II.  The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.50,000 to the complainant as costs of litigation.   

17.    With these directions, the instant Revision Petition No.2323 of 2018 is disposed of.

18.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.