Delhi

West Delhi

CC/21/148

SHIVANI SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUME DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III,

WEST DISTRICT, C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

CC No. 148/21

In re:-

Ms. Shivani Sharma

W/o Shri Mahesh Sharma,

R/o B-270, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower,

New Delhi-110064

                                                                                                               ………..Complainant

VERSUS

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070

Through its Chairman

 

2. D.D.Motors

B-84, Industrial Area, Mayapuri Phase-I,

New Delhi-110064

Through its MD Sh. Rajeev Gambhir

 

3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd,
4.  

Parsvnath Towers,

BHai Veer Singh Marg,Gole Market,

New Delhi-110001

 

Also at

Space No.315, 3^rd Floor, Aggarwal City Mall,

Plot No.04, Road No.44, Pitampura Road,

Block AD, DakshiniPitampura,

New Delhi-110034

.........Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: M. Ram Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant

 

                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                     DATE: 31.05.2022

 

Matter Taken up through Virtual Hearing

ORDER

Per: Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

1.  Complainant states that she had purchased one Maruti Swift LXI (Optional) manufactured by OP.1  bearing Regn No.DL 9CAL 7612,  from OP.2  for a total sum of Rs.5,25,000/- on 6^th October, 2016.  On 6^th Novembr, 2016, some unusal sound  from the streering wheel  was noticed and the  vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP.2. As per the complainant, she had notified to the workshop enginers the fact of hardening of steering wheel as also noise in the steering wheel.  Complainant was apprehensive that there was some manufacturing defect in the vehicle as it was a new vehicle having run only for one month. But the engineers at the workshop belied the  apprehension of the complainant stating that the car is perfect and roadworthy.  Complainant states that during November, 2016 and March, 2017, she visited the workshop so many times but everytime the engineers did some cosmetic service even without proper entry or making job card.  This appeared to be the deliberate act of the OPs to keep their record intact.
2. That  again on 19.4.2017 the car  started giving trouble by giving screeching sound in the steering. She took the vehicle to the workshop of OP.2 where the mechanics tried to fix the issue but  the problem persisted.  However, the OP2 staff kept on saying that the car is working fine now. Thereafter the engineers of OP.2 visited the house of the complainant to repair the car but all in vain.  Again on 25.4.2017, the complainant visited the workshop and the engineers  after carrying out certain repairs stated that they have changed  some part and now the vehicle shall run smoothly even on long drives.
3. On 29.4.2017, the complainant along with her son Rishabh and daughter Shivani Sharma, complainants in CC No.150/21 and 148/21 respectively filed before this Commission planned to visit Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine. Same day at around 1.45 when they had just crossed  Pathankot, Punjab,  complainant’s son Rishabh Sharma, who was driving the car felt that the steering wheel suddenly got hard and unable to move to any direction. Simultaneously the brakes also getting hard and all of a sudden, due to hardening/jamming of the streeing wheel, the car got crashed/dashed with rocks resulting in severe injuries to all  the three inmates, including their younger daughter Preeti Sharma, whose collar bone was badly damaged.  Immediately the  Highway Patrolling team of Jammu & Kashmir Police seeing the accident took the complainant and her family members for proper treatment in the Govt. Hospital. After getting medical aid, the complainant handed over the vehicle to Mr. Sanjeev Kanwar, contact person of M/s Jamkash Vehicleades Private Limited, an authorised Maruti dealer at NH1A, Opposite Channi Himmat, Jammu (J&K) and she  somehow reached back home at Delhi.  In the meantime, OP.3, the insurer was also intimated about the incident and claim etc.  but till the filing of the complaint, nothing had  been paid to them, resulting in deficiency in service.  Thereafter the complainant ran from pillar to post to get relief from OPs 1, 2 and 3.       
4. Complainant states that  in reaching Delhi from Jammu by taxi and on their medical treatment, she spent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.   She has accordingly prayed for replacement of the car with a new one as also seeking compensation towards litigation cost, compensation for horrible  trauma suffered due to supply of manufacturing defective vehicle by OPs 1 & 2, amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-.
5. In the complaint, the complainant states that earlier, due to ignorance, she had filed similar complaint before the Consumer Forum at ITO in 2017 but for want of territorial jurisdiction, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to  file the same before this Commisison on 12.09.2019.  The present complaint was initiated before this Commission  on 01.4.2021, i.e. after more than one and a half years after withdrawing the original complaint.  The complainant has not filed the original complaint as was filed before the District Commission at ITO but has chosen to file afresh the present complaint by mentioning therein that  for want of territorial jurisdiction, the earlier  complaint was withdrawn.    On insistence by the Bench to explain the delay in filing the present complaint, the  complainant has filed  an application under Section 14 of the Limiation Act.  At this stage it is relevant to quote Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as under:

“69. (1) The District Commission, 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 Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

The  order dated 12.09.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission(Central), where the complainant was first filed, records as under:

“Present: Complainant in person.

               Counsel for OP-1 Ms. Veenu Yadav

               Counsel for OP-2  Sh. Chirag Ahmad alongwith Sidhharth Bambha

               Counsel for OP-3 Sh Jitender Chauhan.

 

            It  is stated by the complainant that he wants to withdraw the present complaint on the ground of terrirorial jurisdiction with liberty to file the same as per law.  Heard.

            In view of the above submission made by the complainant, the present complaint is disposed off as withdrawn with liberty to file the same as per law.  Office is directed to return the complaint alongwith all the documents after retaining the copy of same for records.  File be consigned to record room.”

We may note that after withdrawal of the case from the District Consumer Commission(Central) on 12.9.2019, the complaint  instead of  filed  a fresh complaint before this Commission immediately  thereafter, filed it on 12.3.2021, i.e. after a gap of more than 1-1/2 years and that too without any  application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the complaint so late.  Instead the complaint   has been filed afresh with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.  It is relevant to quote  Section 14 of the Limitation Act as under:

“14 Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. —

 

(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

 

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,—

 

(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

 

(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;

 

(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.

 

 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy VII (1998) SLT 334 laid down as under:

“Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”

According to us, the first limitation in this case started when the complainant derived the knowledge about  deficiency in service by the OPs in attending to the car of the complainant.  That was in 2016 and on 29.4.2017 when the accident arose due to alleged manufacturing defect. The complainant was  well within her right to file the earlier complaint before the Consumer Commission(Central) and the same was accordingly entertained and later on dismissed as withdrawn for want of territorial jurisdiction.  However, as far as filing the present complaint before this Commission is concerned, the complainant was supposed to approach this Commission immediately after withdrawal of the earlier complaint but it waited for more than 1-1/2 years to file the present complaint i.e. a long period from 12.9.2019 to 12.3.2021.   According to us the complaint is hopelessly barred by time.  Following the aforementioned ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present complaint is dismissed in limine on the ground of laches. File be consigned to record room. 

We may note that while dismissing the present complaint, we have not touched upon the merits of the case  and simply based our decision on the law of limitation.

 

  (Richa Jindal)                                    (Anil Kumar Koushal)                                          (Sonica Mehrotra)

   Member                                                           Member                                                          President