Delhi

StateCommission

A/1000/2014

R.K. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 Feb 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Hearing: 27.02.2019

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision: 08.03.2019

 

 

First Appeal No. 1000/2014

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Sh. R.K. Sharma

A/4, Oriental Enclave,

Plot No. 32,

Indraprastha Extension,

Delhi-110092                                                                           .... Appellant

 

                            

VERSUS

 

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070                                                             ….Respondents

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

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

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

 

Present:       Mr. V.P. Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant

                   Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad, Proxy Counsel for the respondent

         

ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

JUDGEMENT

1.           Aggrieved by the orders dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, in CC-1095/11 in the matter of Mr. R.K. Sharma vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., holding the OPs as deficient in rendering service to the complainant and dismissing the complaint, Sh. R.K. Sharma, resident of Delhi, has preferred this appeal for short appellant, before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as respondent challenging the orders on the ground that this has been passed without any application of mind and prayed for relief as under:

 

1. It is respectfully prayed that the illegal order passed by the ld. District Forum may be set aside and directions may be issued to the respondents to pay Rs. 60,000/- for repair of the vehicle damaged by the OP and Rs. 110/- as estimation charges.
2. To pay compensation of Rs. One Lacs for depriving the complainant from use of his vehicle.
3. To pay Rs. 50,000/- mental Torture and Physical harassment.
4. To pay legal expenses of Rs. 25,000/-.

 

2.           Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeal are these.
3.           The vehicle, a Wagon-R, bearing registration number DL2C400062, owned by the complainant/appellant broke down on the road on 12.08.2011. The complainant/appellant having entered into a contract with Maruti on road service called the helpline of the OPs, namely, M/s Saya Automobile, for assistance, they being nearest to the spot where the vehicle had gone out of order. The complainant’s version is that the Car’s oil pressure was low while the technician declared this as the battery being defective. According to the complainant the technician kept the engine of the car running for an hour leading to the damage to the engine. Since the damage to the vehicle was done due to irresponsible act of the technician who was the agent of the OPs, the OPs are responsible for the damage done. But the District Forum according to the appellant could not appreciate the issue involved and passed order as if there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. However the complainant did not place before the District Forum any cogent or tangible evidence as necessary for establishing the case.  
4.           The respondents were noticed and in response thereto they have filed reply resisting the appeal on various grounds, namely, the appeal is barred by limitation. The order of the ld. District Forum, New Delhi against which the present appeal has been filed is dated 06.08.2014. The present appeal has been filed before this Commission on 18.10.2014 after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and hence the appeal is not maintainable and is required to be dismissed. However this averment regarding limitation does not carry conviction since the respondents have not been able to account for the number of days of delay, as the period of 30 days is to count from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and the respondents have no where indicated the date on which the certified copy of the order was received by the appellant. Secondly, on merit the vehicle was in perfect and roadworthy condition during the tenure of warranty. The vehicle was attended to by the workshops and fulfilled their obligations unequivocally as per the terms and conditions of warranty during the tenure of warranty period. Thirdly, the engine of vehicle became defective due to improper care and negligence of the complainant and also due to long use without servicing and maintenance schedule. The complainant was advised during his several visits at the workshops to keep the vehicle in good condition and replacement of parts (wear and tear) including a replacement of oil(s), coolant, etc. but the complainant ignored the advice made. Further on 02.05.2011, the vehicle was attended by the Maruti on road (MOS) Service since vehicle was stranded on road due to some problem. Besides the appellant having purchased the vehicle in question on 28.05.2002 the warranty expired on 27.05.2004. Finally, no consideration having been paid, the complainant/appellant qua the respondent is not a consumer.
5.           The matter was listed for final hearing on 27.02.2019 when Mr. V.P. Sharma on behalf of the appellant and Sh. Shahbaz Ahmad, on behalf of the respondent appeared and made submissions based on their pleadings. I have read and re-read the records of the case. I notice that no expert opinion regarding the defect either existing or caused, has been furnished though essentially required.
6.           It is a trite law that the onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect or such a defect has been caused, rests on the complainant. On the same principle and analogy the onus to prove that there has been defective repairing is also on the complainant. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra as reported in I [2010] CPJ 235 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:

 

The onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect was on complainant/respondent No.1. We agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent No. 1 failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect by producing any cogent evidence. Complainant failed to produce expert evidence as provided under Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:

         

“(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make and analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

 

7.           Expert opinion is a condition precedent for establishing manufacturing defect or the defect caused as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC in EID Parry vs. Baby Benjamin- I[1992] CPJ 279, Tata Motors vs. Sunil Bhasin- III [2008] CPJ 111, Chandreshwar vs. Telco- I [2007] CPJ 2, Diamond Cement vs. Rai Prexim India Pvt. Ltd. I [2003] CPJ 1 Lovely vs. Harmesh Lal-I [2007] CPJ 312. On the same principle the expert opinion for the defective repairing done would be a condition precedent.
8.           It is a statement of fact that the complainant has not furnished the evidence/expert opinion with respect to the defective repairing, though an essential requirement. Keeping in view the law settled by the Hon’ble NCDRC it is incumbment on the complainant to prove and substantiate through expert opinion their allegation regarding defective repairing. The complainant not having done this, their allegation regarding the defective repairing in the vehicle remains unsubstantiated.
9.           In the given case the appellant has not furnished the evidence as required and therefore there appears no infirmity in the orders passed by the District Forum.
10. Having regard to this and the legal position having been explained I am of the view that the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is ordered accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information.
12. File be consigned to records.

 

(Anil Srivastava)​

Member