Haryana

Kurukshetra

215/2018

Vishal Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Kumar

15 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.215 of 2018.

Date of instt.: 08.10.2018.

                                                                        Date of Order: 15.05.2019.

 

Vishal Saini aged 25 years son of Shri Sheesh Ram Saini, resident of House No.481/5, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

 

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Nelson Mendela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070.

2. Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Maruti Suzuki Dealer plot no. 156-157, Industrial area sector 2 Kurukshetra, Haryana- 136118.

3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. old palam Gurugram road, Gurugram, Haryana- 122015.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present :       Sh. Vishal Saini, complainant in person.

Sh. P.S. Saini, Advocate for opposite parties no. 1 and 3.

Sh. Vishal Kundi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

              

                                         

ORDER

 

                      By this order, we shall dispose of an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the complaint filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 i.e. Karnal Motors Private Limited.

2.             It is averred in the application that in para no.25 of the complaint, the complainant has admitted that one other civil suit is pending between the parties for the present cause of action. As per the strict provisions of Civil Procedure Code, simultaneous litigation between same parties in different courts on the same cause of action is clear ground for rejection of the complaint. In fact the jurisdiction of this Forum is completely barred when the same issue is also pending adjudication before a civil court. It is further averred that a consumer dispute is a summary trial and complicated question of law cannot be decided by this Forum. The plaintiff has cooked up a false and frivolous story in total contradiction to his own admission made at the time of taking accidental claim for the repair of the vehicle in question. Sufficient documentary evidence in this regard is already present before this Forum to ascertain this fact. Thus, the complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It is further averred that it is amply clear from the above noted facts/ grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and he is only misstating and twisting the facts to defeat the ends of justice.

3.             The complainant filed reply to the application resisting the application. It is submitted that application moved by op no.2 is not maintainable and has been filed just to delay the proceedings of the case. Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly states that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of civil court or other statutory authority. It is further submitted that case pending in the Court of Sh. Chetesh Gupta is completely of different nature. It is suit for damages as life long injury complainant had to face due to defect in the vehicle. But in Consumer complaint, it is related to defected goods and for deficiency in services. The op no.2 is aware of the fact that this case is of different nature and prayer for dismissal of application made.

4.             The complainant has placed on record copy of plaint of civil suit mark A, copy of complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act titled as Vishal Saini vs. National Insurance Company etc. mark B. OP no.2 has placed on record copy of motor claim intimation form mark C.

5              We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for applicant/ op no.2 has contended that complainant has filed three cases on same cause of action. Firstly he filed civil suit before the Hon’ble Civil Court, copy of plaint of civil suit is mark A, second complaint is pending before this Forum for 23.5.2019, copy of said complaint is mark B and third is present complaint. In all three cases, cause of action is same. In the suit for damages titled as Vishal Saini Versus Maruti Suzuki India and National Insurance Company and others, the plaintiff has claimed amount for damages due to defective Dzire Car, whereas in the present complaint the complainant has claimed refund of Rs.8,05,000/- with interest i.e. price of the car due to supply of defective car. He has further contended that in motor claim intimation form mark C regarding which another consumer complaint titled as Vishal Saini Vs. National Insurance Company etc. for reimbursement of claim amount for damage to the Car is pending before this Forum, the complainant has given total contradictory reason of the accident.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant has contended that civil suit filed by complainant is regarding damages which is pending in the Civil Court, in second case pending before this Forum fixed for 23.5.2019, the complainant has demanded reimbursement of claim amount from the insurance company for damages to the vehicle and in this present complaint, he has demanded refund of the price of the vehicle as defective vehicle has been sold by ops Maruti Suzuki. He has further contended that Section 10 of CPC would not apply in this case as the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Learned counsel for complainant has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara, 2005 AIR (SC) 242 and State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Co-op. society and others, 2003 (1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 393.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the case file as well as law cited by learned counsel for complainant.

9.             In the civil suit titled as Vishal Saini Versus Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. which is a suit for damages pending in the Civil Court, the complainant has claimed amount for damages as major accident took place due to not working of brakes of the vehicle and complainant received injuries in the accident due to defective vehicle. The prayer clause of that civil suit reads as under:-

        “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice for delivering plaintiff a defected car and playing with the life of plaintiff which caused a life-long injury to the plaintiff.

        Whereas in the present complaint titled as Vishal Saini vs. Maruti Suzuki India and others, the complainant has claimed refund of the price amount of Rs.8,05,000/- for supply of defective car. The para no.22 of the present complaint reads as under:-

        “That till today nothing has been done in this manner and complainant has been subject to harassment by visiting workshop again and again for the new vehicle respondents know the fact that it was defected on the date of sale since Abs lights were turned on at that time also.”

        The prayer clause of the present complaint reads as under:-

1. Respondents be directed to pay complainant sum of Rs.8,05,000/- with 18% per annum interest from date of purchase of car.
2. To pay a compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant for the deficient services detailed hereinabove; and
3. That respondents may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony etc.
4. That respondents be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/-.

Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code provides that “

10. Stay of suit- No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by (the Central Government) and having like jurisdiction, or before (the Supreme Court).

10.            From the above relevant para of present complaint as well as prayer clauses of both the civil suits and present complaint, it is clear that in both the cases complainant has claimed compensation/ refund of price due to defective vehicle supplied by Maruti Suzuki and subject matter in both civil suit as well as present complaint is same and therefore, above said Section 10 of CPC would apply in the present case. In both the above said cases, the matter in issue is also directly and substantially between the same parties is same. Further, in motor claim intimation form mark C regarding which another complaint is pending before this Forum, the complainant has mentioned that there were lot of vehicles on the road and there was construction work and material on the road and in order to give passage to the other vehicles, the complainant turned the vehicle towards mud on side of the road and the vehicle skid leading to the accident. Whereas in the civil suit, the complainant has taken altogether different stand and pleaded that on 30.5.2018 while coming back from Manali, plaintiff was driving the aforesaid car and his two friends were sitting inside the vehicle, suddenly the steering wheel got jammed on the plain road and to stop the car, plaintiff applied brakes and forcefully turned the steering wheel to the right side but the aforesaid car instead of moving right it moved towards left side because of some internal defect in the car. The brakes did not work (as the abs lights were on from day one) as a result the plaintiff met with a major accident.

11.            From the above discussion, the present complaint does not appear to be maintainable. The authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant are not disputed but same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In these circumstances, the application for rejection of complaint is allowed and resultantly the complaint is rejected being barred by law. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.     

        

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 15.05.2019.                                          (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.