Delhi

StateCommission

RP/26/2017

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAM SINGH & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SONAL CHAUHAN

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

                                                                                                                                                                       (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                      Date of Arguments: 28.04.17

                                                                                                        Date of decision: 05.05.17

 

RP No. 26/2017

In the matter of:

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Registered office at:

 Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road

Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070

(Originally Opposite Party No. 1)                                       ……….Petitioner

 

                                                                        Versus

 

1. Shri Karam Singh

   S/o Shri Narender Singh

   R/o C-60, Jungpura-B

   New Delhi-110014.

  (Originally complainant)

 

2. M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.

   15, Firoz Gandhi Marg, 3CS, Lajpat Nagar-III

   New Delhi-110024

 

Also at:

   Competent House, F-14, Connaught Place

   New Delhi-110001

   (Originally Opposite Party No.2)

 

3.M/s Maruti Service Masters

  F-39, Okhla industrial Area, Phase-II

  Near C Lal Chowk

  New Delhi-110020

  (Originally Opposite Party No. 3)                                …Respondents

  CORAM

           

HON’BLE SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the Judgement? Yes

2. To be referred to the reporters or not?  Yes

Hon’ble Shri O.P.Gupta

JUDGEMENT

            The  present revision is directed against order dated 09.02.17 passed by District Consumer Forum in complaint case No. 167/16.  The petitioner was OP 1 before the District Forum.

2.         The order recites that AR/Legal Manager of petitioner stated before District Forum that in order to carry out repair in car in question, the engine had to be removed from the body of the car.  The District Forum allowed the said request but directed that OP 1 would not open the engine from inside.  The complainant/respondent 1 herein was allowed to do videography of the car at the time of repair. The respondent No. was directed to  take the vehicle to the workshop of petitioner on 14.02.17 at 11.00 A.M. Person of workshop of petitioner  was to provide copies of job card to respondent no. 1 despite the fact that according to AR of petitioner, as per their policies  copy of the job card could not be given to respondent no.1.  The matter was adjourned to 15.03.17 for further proceedings.

3.         Now the grievance of the petitioner is that it cannot permit the respondent no. 1 to do the videography of the car at the time of repair.  According to him opening of the engine involves risk and as per policy of petitioner no outsider can be allowed to be present at the time the engine is opened.

4.         Respondent No. 1 stated that in case petitioner was not agreeable to allow videography (respondent no. 1) be permitted to get the engine opened from person              of his choice and petitioner should bear the expenses of the opening of the engine which is stated to be required to remove the noise which probably requires change of oil.  The petitioner expressed its unwillingness to allow respondent no. 1 to get the same repaired at the cost of petitioner.

5.         The other alternative suggested by this Commission was that if respondent no. 1 can not be permitted to do videography,  some person of confidence of respondent No. 1 who is acquainted with the work of opening of engine and can take safety measure, may be allowed to do the videography.  That was also declined by the petitioner.

6.         From the above it appears that petitioner has some ill design in mind and wants to open the engine in the absence of respondent no. 1 so that it may point out any number of faults.

7.         Leaving apart all above facts, it may be mentioned that scope of revision is very very limited. It is not the same as that  of appeal.  Revision is confined to jurisdictional error only.  In the recent case there is no such jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order.  The District Forum has the jurisdiction to pass such interim orders as are necessary.  Thus it is neither a case of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the district forum nor is the case of failure to exercise jurisdiction.  It is also not the case of material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.

8.         In taking the above view I am fortified by decision of National Commission in Birla Institute of Technology and Science vs. Abhishek Monga 2013 (3) CLT 128.

9.         The counsel for the petitioner relied upon Maruti  Udyog Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra & Others AIR 2006 SC 1586, the decision of National Commission in RP No. 981 of 2007 titled as Telco vs. Hardeep Singh decided on 21.03.11.  The same are not applicable.  They pertain to manufacturing defect  and replacement of defective parts respectively.  Petitioner also placed reliance on decision of Kerala State Commission in Appeal No, 627/10 titled as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Karunakaran Pillai decided on 27.07.11.  That also pertains to refund of price.  It was held that during warranty the manufacturer is bound to repair or replace defective parts and not to replace the vehicle by a brand new defect free vehicle.  The same is not applicable to the present case.

10.       For the foregoing reasons the revision is dismissed.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order e sent to district forum for information.

 

(O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 

sbm