Haryana

StateCommission

A/543/2018

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SALIL SABHLOK

12 Jan 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.543 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 27.04.2018

                                                          Date of final hearing: 12.01.2023

Date of pronouncement: 17.02.2023

 

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regd. Office 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Mr. Mahender Singh, S/o Mangtu Ram, R/o VPO Bhutan Khurd, Fatehabad, Tehsil & Distt.Fatehabad.
2. M/s Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Sirsa Road, Fatehabad,Tehsil & Distt Fatehabad.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Salil Salok, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Parshant Garg, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 29 days is condoned for the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.543 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 12.02.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.214 of 2016, which was partly allowed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2015, complainant purchased a new car make Alto 800 LXI for an amount of Rs.2,79,300/- from opposite party No.1 with manufacturer’s warranty of one year. In the month of March, 2016, he noticed that inner side paint of the window of the car had faded and he visited the office of the OP on 19.05.2016, where OP inspected the car and assured that problem will be solved shortly.  On 07.03.2016, he visited the office of OP No.1, where official of OP No.1 informed that paint of the window had faded because he used local made foot mats in his car. Thus there being deficiency in  service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

4.      In its written version, OP No.1 filed reply and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts. Further complainant was  said to be negligent in maintenance of the vehicle. The complainant did not obtain free maintenance service. On 05.03.2016, he visited the work shop of OP No.1.    Upon inspection, the OP noticed that complainant had got fitted LPG Gas Kit.  The colour of vehicle might have changed due to chemical reaction between local foot mats and the body part of the vehicle.  Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 sought dismissal of the complaint as prayed for.

5.      OP No.2 filed separate reply.  It was submitted that due to non approved parts, the paint of the vehicle got faded. OP No.2 also disclosed of its using ultra technical equipment and robot in its paint shop during his paint process of  a vehicle.    No such complaint  of colour discoloration was received  by the OP.  Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and dismissal of the complaint as prayed for.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Fatehabad has allowed the complaint vide order dated 12.02.2018, which is as under:-

“In view of aforesaid discussion the present complaint is partly allowed against OP No.2.  The complainant shall take the car to the work shop of OPs within a period of one month after receipt of copy of this order and the OP No.2 shall be bound to re-paint the whole car like a new one within a period of 2 weeks free of costs.  The OP No.2 is also further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension, physical harassment and inconvenience. The present complaint is accordingly disposed of.”

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P No. 2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh. Salil Sablok, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Deepak Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Parshant Garg,
Advocate for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as that of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

9.      It is not disputed that on 19.05.2015 complainant  purchased new Alto car from the opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.2,79,300/- manufactured by OP No.2.  It is also not disputed that the car was having manufacturer’s warranty for one year.  It is also not disputed that the colour of the car in question got faded away in March 2016.

10.    During the proceedings of the case before the District commission, the learned District commission has referred the matter for expert opinion. On 12.09.2017, the works Manager of Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad  submitted his report Ex.CW1/8  and had opined that the paint of the car in question was checked by him and it was found that the colour of all the four windows from inside and that of the trunk (dickey) has been faded away.  After expert report, it is well proved that paint of the car has actually faded away. Since there was deficiency in service on the  part of the OP, the learned District Commission has rightly partly allowed the complaint against OP No.2-manufacturer. The learned District Commission has committed no illegality while passing the order dated 12.02.2018.  The appeal being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.              File be consigned to record room.

 

17^th February, 2023            Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)