Haryana

StateCommission

A/325/2016

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAYENDER - Opp.Party(s)

SALIL SABHLOK

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           325 of 2016

                                                Date of the Institution: 18.04.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         10.04.2018

 

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

Also at: Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon.

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Jayender son of Shri Rajender Singh, resident of Village Gurawara, Tehsil and District Rewari (Haryana).

 

….. Respondent No.1-Complainant

2.      Apra Auto (I) Private Limited, Mangal House, Near Old Chungi, Bawal Road, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari (Haryana).

 

3.      Vipul Motors Private Limited, Udyog Vihar, Phase-III, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (Haryana).

 

….. Respondents No.2 & 3-Opposite Parties No.2 and 3

 

 

CORAM:    Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Salil Sablok, Advocate for appellant.

                   Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                   (Name of respondents No.2 and 3 deleted vide order dated 30.08.2016)

 

                                                O R D E R

 

R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

 

          As per complainant he purchased car in question from opposite party (in short ‘OP’) No.3 i.e. Vipul Motors Private Limited on 28.02.2011. During use of this vehicle, it was found that mileage was very poor and it was also consuming oil. The vehicle was taken to workshop time and again, but, to no use. So OPs be directed to replace the same.

2.      In reply it was alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in vehicle. Mileage etc. could be result of manner of use i.e. A.C., air pressure etc. and warranty was only of two years and not three years. The vehicle was repaired as and when brought to the workshop and there was no manufacturing defect.  

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.02.2016 and directed as under:-

“….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.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP No.1 has preferred this appeal.

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 consumption etc. which is clear from the table mentioned in the 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 C.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 from the cited laws because the same is based on different facts. 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 statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.  

 

 

 

Announced 10.04.2018

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member Addl. Bench

D.R.