A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD.
FA 1625/2006 against C.C. 882/2005, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
D. Hanumantha Rao,
S/o. D. V. Kishan Rao
Age: 40 years, Business
R/o. First Floor, 303/2RT
Vijayanagar colony
Hyderabad-500 057. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
1) Maruthi Udyog Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Jagadish Khattar
Office at 2nd Floor
Jeevan Prakash Building
25, Kasturiba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi.
2) M/s. The Mitra Agencies
Rep. by its Managing Director
1-8-670, Azamabad Indl. Area
RTC Cross Roads,
Hyderabad-500 020. *** Respondents/
O.P. No. 1 & 2
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. J. Ashvini Kumar.
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. E. Phani Kumar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) The appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Maruthi Wagon-R vehicle from R2 distributor manufactured by R1 and took delivery of it on 5.8.2001. He came to learn that it was manufactured in the month of March, 2001 and that it was 5 months old. Within a short span of time, he found that there were inherent defects in respect of 1) steering, 2) fuel pump 3) suspension 4) Noises in the dash board and 5) cooling system. He was repeatedly getting them repaired with R2. It has replaced suspension, power steering in the month of September, 2004 on assuring that if the tyres were replaced there will not be any problem in regard to suspicion and power steering, he got tyres were replaced. However, the defects were continued. He had been continuously getting some problem or the other and he could know that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle. He had to face sudden breakdown of the vehicle in respect of cooling system. He got it serviced with R2 just two days prior to his visit to Pune on 2.5.2004. Though R2 has been attending on the repairs they were not rectified. This amounts to deficiency in service. One Mr. Krishna Kumar has orally informed that at the time of delivery of the vehicle the battery and the tyres were one year old, as such he had to change the battery on 22.5.2003 including fuel pump. Vexed with the continuous problem, he got issued legal notice followed by complaint for payment of compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs jointly and severally or replace the vehicle together with payment of interest and costs.
3) R1 manufacturer resisted the case. It alleged that the complaint itself was barred by limitation by virtue of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. At the time of despatch of the vehicle to the dealer it would be thoroughly checked. The vehicle was sold with warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000 Kms whichever occurs earlier. The complainant had utilized three free services on 13.10.2001, 26.2.2002 and 4.7.2002 at 1489 KMs, 6306 Kms and 10775 Kms respectively. From this it is evident that there were no defects. He had utilized the vehicle extensively and ran 44,818 Kms as on 19.11.2004. The complainant cannot raise the dispute after four years of purchase. The complaint was misconceived and that there was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) R2 dealer resisted the case. While admitting the sale of vehicle to the complainant, it alleged that the complainant had utilized all free service coupons. But for the service rendered by it punctually, the complainant could not have covered more than 44,000 Kms within a short span. Whenever, the complainant complained of any defects they were rectified. They were all minor repairs. When the complainant asked for replacement of tyres after crossing 49,944 KMs on 20.4.2005 for free of costs, the request was declined on that he filed this complaint. There were no inherent defects in the vehicle nor deficiency in service on its part and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A20 marked. The respondents did not file any documents.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that R2 had attended on the vehicle, rectified whatever small defects if there were any. The complainant after expiry of the warranty period plyed the vehicle for more than 40,000 KMs. There was no deficiency in service and therefore dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the vehicle was giving continuous trouble from the beginning in respect of 1) steering 2) fuel pump 3) suspension 4) noises in dash board and 5) cooling system as evident from the history card maintained by R2. He was made to visit the workshop of R2 and got it repaired by spending lot of amount. But for the inherent defects in the vehicle, he could not have got it repaired several times. It is not for the first time he complained. Since the defects were not rectified within 3 years he filed the complaint and therefore he prayed that the complaint be allowed.
8) The point that arises for consideration are:
i) Whether there are any inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle?
ii) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
iii) To what relief?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased Wagon-R vehicle manufactured by R1 from R2 dealer on 5.8.2001. It is also not in dispute that for the purchase made on 5.8.2001 he laid the complaint on 28.9.2005 i.e., after 4 years 1 month. It was covered by warranty for a period of two years with three free services. The complainant has availed all the three services on 13.10.2001, 26.2.2002 and 4.7.2002 at 1489 KMs, 6306 Kms and 10775 Kms respectively evidenced under Exs. A7 & A8. No doubt the complainant had mentioned that there was noise in the dash board and that there was defect in the clutch plates. In fact they were adjusted and the complainant had satisfied with rectification evidenced from his own signature. On 11.11.2002 after the complainant has used the vehicle by running 14,751 KMs he complained low mileage, ignition timing, and trouble in suspension. In the remarks coloumn it was mentioned that third free service done. All doors adjusted, all general check up done, clutch plates adjusted, ENT done. Ex. A10 vehicle history card maintained on 20.4.2005, more than three years after purchase, when he complained steering noise, trouble in suspension and both seats noise it was noted that they were attended to. In the remarks column it was mentioned that “ all tyres changed and ‘its good doing well’. Earlier routine checks were made on 21.9.2004, 19.11.2004 evidenced under Exs. A12 and Ex. A11 respectively. R2 has been attending to whatever the problems the complainant was making.
10) When the complainant has been using the vehicle getting routine check up, did not point out any major defect, he cannot turned round and complain, after four years and that too after the expiry of warranty period that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Obviously knowing his own inadequacy of the case, he pleaded that one of the employees Mr. Krishna Kumar has “orally” informed that at the time of delivery of the vehicle the battery and tyres were one year old. If really that were to be so the complainant would not have kept quiet for all these years. The complainant
did not take the vehicle to any expert in order to find out whether really there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complaints that were made by him were already attended to, and he has been running the vehicle. He has been using even after the filing of the complaint. In fact the vehicle has completed 44,818 KMs by 19.11.2004. The warranty extends for a period of 24 months or 40,000 KMs whichever occur earlier. The complainant could not have complained that there were manufacturing defect after four years of purchase and that too after running the vehicle more than 40,000 KMs. The complainant did not issue any notice within the warranty period about the defect which according to him was manufacturing defect. The job cards filed by him do not in any way indicate that there was manufacturing defect. Whatever the small defects that were pointed out which were inherent while plying the vehicle were attended to by R2. At no time the complainant had complained about it. The complainant failed to establish that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Therefore, we do not see any mis-appreciation of fact by the Dist. Forum in this regard.
11) Coming to the question of limitation for the purchase made by the complainant on 4.8.2001 he filed the complaint on 28.9.2005 viz., after expiry of four years and one month, beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. Recently the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) reported in (2009) 5 SCC 121 held that the Dist. Forum is duty bound to determine whether a complaint is barred by limitation irrespective of such plea raised by the parties. Their Lordships opined that :
“Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the consumer fora thus: "24A. Limitation period - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own 5 whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. “
The complainant did not make any complaint within the period of limitation. The complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed u/s 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is hopelessly barred by limitation. He cannot complain that there was manufacturing defect after four years. At least it could have been within the warranty period. We are of the opinion that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) _________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 24. 08. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
