Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/962/2017

Shikha Shantanu Sharma w/o Shantanu Sharma through its Power of Attorney Holder Pratap Singh Arya S/o Hans Raj Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.through its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Singh Arya

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 966 /2017

 

Vipul Motors Pvt.Ltd.,Regional Office S-10 Shyam Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur through General Manager & ors.

Vs.

Shikha Shantnu Sharma w/o Shantnu Sharma r/o 29 Sangram colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur through Power of Attorney Pratap Singh Arya

 

APPEAL NO: 962/2017

 

Shikha Shantanu Sharma w/o Shantanu Sharma r/o 29 Sangram colony, C-Scheme,Jaipur through power of attorney Pratap Singh Arya

Vs.

 

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. regd.office Palam Gurgaon Road Gurgaon (Haryana) through its MD & ors.

 

Date of Order 26.4.2018

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta- Member

 

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma counsel for Vipul Motors and Maruti Suzuki

Mr. Pratap Singh Arya counsel for the complainant Shikha Shantanu Sharma

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

Both these appeals are preferred against the single order hence, are decided by this common order

 

The contention of the appellant is that the vehicle was not suffering from any manufacturing defect. Per contra it was not maintained as per service manual . Timely services were not done and problem of noise was insignificant defect which was also cured. The vehicle was not under warranty hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

3

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent consumer is that the vehicle was defective and when now the car of this make is discontinued the order of repair would not cure the defect hence, the price of the car should be refunded.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the car was purchased on 31.3.2010 and it has also been specifically pleaded by the complainant that as she used to visit Australia regularly the car could only ply on average 450 km.per month. Even from 2011 to 2013 car could not be driven due to their absence from India. In 2013 on 4^th free service it was found that car is noisy on the right portion of the vehicle and this defect could not be removed till presentation of the complaint. Even other authorized Maruti dealer Prem Motors could not cured the defect hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

 

The job sheets Ex. 4 dated 14.9.2013 and 15.11.2013, Ex. 16 dated 3.8.2015 and Ex. 17 dated 1.10.2015 clearly

4

 

reveals that the vehicle was noisy and even the contention of the Vipul Motors was that on 4.11.2013, 5.11.2013, 23.10.2013, 15.11.2013 and 18.2.2014 the vehicle was brought to his workshop with the complaint and further Ex. 16 & 17 clearly concluded that the defect could not be removed. Hence, the contention of the appellant Vipul Motors that it was not suffering from any manufacturing defect is not acceptable.

 

The appellant Vipul Motors has relied upon 2009 2 CPR (NC) 281 Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Atul Bharadwaj where no manufacturing defect could be found. In I (2013) CPJ 47 (NC) Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobile & anr. the vehicle was found overheating only once and in judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 981/2007 Telco Presently Tata Motors Vs. Hardip Singh the vehicle was running satisfactorily from the date of purchase but here in the present case job sheets clearly shows that the vehicle was defective and the consumer has rightly relied upon III (2016) CPJ 543 (NC) Regent Automobiles Vs. Euro Enterprises where ' defect' is explained by the National Commission. Here in the present case also the vehicle was faulty and imperfect and vehicle was not in a road worthy condition.

5

 

Reliance could be placed on I (2018) CPJ 157 (NC) Maruti Suzuki Vs. Dr.Koneru Satya Kishre where the National Commission has held that the vehicle is said to be suffering from defect if there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming etc. Here in the present case after so many efforts the defect of noise could not be cured.

 

It is very unfortunate that Maruti Suzuki and Vipul Motors have pleaded that defect is very insignificant and referred the condition (m) of Anx. R 1/A wherein it has been mentioned that insignificant defects which do not affect the function of the vehicle including without limitation, sound, vibration and fluid seep could be ignored. This type of argument could not be entertained as there may be cases where vehicle is running but having loud sound or vibrant which could fall under the definition of defect as explained by the National Commission in Regent Automobiles (supra). Hence, in view of the above the Forum below has rightly held that when the vehicle was noisy and defect could not be removed it was deficiency on the part of the appellants.

 

It may also be noted that it is the specific case of the

6

 

complainant that 40000 vehicles of the same model were re-called due to defective break system and noise in front part of the vehicle and this fact has been evasively denied by the Maruti Suzuki but no record has been submitted to show that vehicles were not re-called or there was no such complaint about the same make. Even the affidavit of Pushpender Rathore the Territory Service Manager of Maruti Suzuki has not stated a word in his affidavit about re-calling of 40000 vehicles which clearly shows that vehicle was defective and inspite of various efforts it could be not repaired. Hence, the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

The contention of the consumer is that cost of the vehicle should have been refunded and reliance has been placed on III (2016) CPJ 426 (NC) Honda Siel Car India Vs. Rohit Jain where the engine of the vehicle was collapsed and production of the car was stopped only after one year of the purchase and even engine and spare parts were not in stock which is not the case here. The defect is not in

relation to engine of the vehicle but only of the

noise problem. Hence, the Forum below has

 

7

 

rightly ordered for repair of the car and appropriate compensation has also been allowed.

 

In view of the above, both appeals are liable to be dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta) Member President

 

 

nm