Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/157

N.K. SURI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI UDYG LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

                                              Date of Arguments:05.12.16    

                                              Date of Decision:        09.12.16

                                              First Appeal No. 157/11

In the matter of:

 

 

Dr. N.K.Suri(Deceased)

G-3, NDMC Flats Type IV

South End Lane

New Delhi-11                                                      ………..Appellant

 

Through L.R. Narender Kumar

I-403,

Vivek Vihar (AWHO)

Sector 82,

NOIDA-201301                                 

 

                                                Vs.

1. Sikand and Company

Through its CEO Shri Sanjay Sikand

50, Janpath

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Though its Managing Director

Jeevan Prakash, 11 Floor

New Delhi-110001                                             ……..Respondents

         

CORAM

                               

^{O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)}

 

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

 

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

 

                                                                           JUDGEMENT

 

          The present execution appeal has been filed by complainant/decree holder against order dated 25.03.11 passed by district consumer forum, New Delhi regarding satisfaction of the final order dated 18.11.08 in complaint case No. 930/03. 

2. It is necessary to reproduce the facts mentioned in the complaint, in order to appreciate the legality of impugned order. The complainant purchased a car DL-2CP-0604 on 10.09.01 for Rs. 3,41,612/-. He found defect in vibration in the car, rattling sound in all the doors, dickey and bonnet, defective shockers, life saving seat belt not being comfortable, current in doors during winter, poor pick up with air-conditioner, gears not smooth, poor mileage of 9 to 10 km per litre, driving seat exerting pressure on the right side of the body, head light being out of focus, front right side door glass making rattling noise and abnormal sound in front wheel. He sent representation in November 2001 to which he received reply on 17.11.01.  Defects persisted and complainant sought replacement of car with new one or refund of  the entire sale consideration of car.

3.      JD/OP filed a reply stating that repair in respect of vibration was made, thus no defect existed.  Complaint regarding door noise was made on 29.01.02 which was duly rectified by adjusting greasing latches.  Car had run to the extent of 6043 km on 20.02.03. Allegation of defective shocker and seat belt was denied engine turning was adjusted by adjusting clutch plate, poor mileage could not be classified as defect.

4.      The district forum directed removal of categorized -defects free of cost and replace the part free of cost, if required.  Rs. 30,000/- was granted as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- was granted as cost of litigation.

5.      The decree holder filed execution of order dated 25.03.11 which is under challenge. The same  reads as below:-

Present parties, perused the order for removal of defect of the car purchased by the complainant.  This has been done and compensation also has been paid.  Yet the complainant is not satisfied and he had accepted the repair with note he is not satisfied.  For satisfaction of the complainant it is a subjective matter.  Nothing remains to be done.  Order stands complied.  File is consigned to record room.

6.      At the very outset I may observe that the car purchased in 2001 has completed its life of 15 years.  Now the same cannot be driven on road as per latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court to avoid pollution.  Thus there remains no substance in the appeal.  No further repair would serve any purpose.

7.      On merits I am constrained to observe that decree holder has been using car through out for 15 years and still he is not satisfied.  There can be no question of seat belt being not comfortable.  The defects pointed out by the complainant are so petty that they can never be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. The district forum has rightly observed that satisfaction is subjective.

8.      The original purchaser of the car had expired.  LR is continuing the matter in court.

9.      I do not find that impugned order calls for interference.  The appeal fails and is rejected.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parities free of cost.

          One copy of the order be sent to district forum for information.