Haryana

StateCommission

A/177/2015

PARDEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT KUMAR GOYAL

17 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      177 of 2015

Date of Institution:      24.02.2015

Date of Decision :       17.07.2015

 

Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh. Risal Singh, Resident of Village Garh Shejanpur, P.O. Shahpur Turk, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Jag Mohan Motors Private Limited, through its Manager, Bhalgarh Road, Sonepat.

 

3.      Regional Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, North IV SCO 39-40, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 3.

Shri Ashwani Kumar Antil, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The instant appeal of complainant is directed against the order dated October 28^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, whereby complaint filed by him, was dismissed.

2.      Pardeep Kumar-complainant (appellant) purchased a car of Maruti Swift Dzire LDI BS IV make on February 16^th, 2012 from Jagmohan Motors Limited, Sonepat (Opposite Party No.2) vide Sale Certificate (Annexure R2/1). After few days of the purchase, colour of the car faded. Alleging it to be a manufacturing defect in the car, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite parties contested the complaint. They denied any manufacturing defect in the car. It was stated that the engineers of Maruti Suzuki India Limited also verified that there was no manufacturing defect in the car. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      Shri Salil Sabhlok, learned counsel for Maruti Suzuki India Limited has stated that Maruti Suzuki India Limited is ready to get the car repainted from where it was faded, free of cost.

5.      The proposal given by learned counsel for Maruti Suzuki India Limited has been accepted by Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

6.      In view of this, it is directed that the complainant shall take the car at Jagmohan Motors Limited, Sonepat-Opposite Party No.2, on or before August 01^st, 2015 and the affected area of the car shall be got repainted at the cost of Maruti Suzuki India Limited.

7.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 17.07.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL