Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1233/2017

Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Brijpal Singh Rathore s/o Baldev Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sarita Shrma

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1211/2017

 

Prem Motors Pvt.Ltd. authorized dealer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 12/13 Sudershanpura Industrial Area, Jaipur. Through Chief General Manager Vikas Sharma

Vs.

Brijpal Singh Rathore (advocate) s/o Baldev Singh r/o 26, Civil Lines, Keshav Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1233 /2017

 

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

Vs.

Brijpal Singh Rathore s/o Baldev Singh r/o 26, Civil Lines, Keshav Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 26.9.2018

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta- Member

2

 

Mr. Vipul Sharma counsel for Prem Motors

Mr.P.D.Luthra counsel for Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Mr.J.K.Agarwal counsel for the complainant

 

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

 

Both these appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 14.9.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellants.

 

The contention of the appellants is that in warranty period on 11.2.2015 the vehicle was brought to the service station of Prem Motors and on checking of the vehicle it was recommended that alongwith other defects water pump was also leakage but on that day water pump was not in the stock hence, it was assured to the complainant that within 2-3 days water pump would be changed and as per the contention of the complainant himself on 13.2.2015 he was informed that water pump is now available and it could be changed but till 20.2.2015 the complainant has not bring the vehicle and on that day when he was coming from Nawa the vehicle was

3

 

seized. Hence, the complainant himself was negligent and not covered under the warranty which is evident from the warranty policy clause 4 (5) .

 

The contention of the Maruti Suzuki is that the vehicle was not suffering from any manufacturing defect hence, Maruti Suzuki is not liable.

 

Per contra the contention of the complainant respondent is that on that day water pump was not changed and on 20.2.2015 when vehicle was seized the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

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 vehicle was brought for regular service on 11.2.2015 and it is the recommendation of the appellant Prem Motors that with other damage the water pump have also leakage and it is also mentioned in the job card that part is not in stock hence, it could be changed within 2-3 days. It is also the contention of

4

 

Prem Motors that leakage was very small and there was no problem in plying the vehicle in Jaipur. It is also not in dispute that the complainant took the vehicle to Nawa which is about 160 km. from Jaipur and it is also rightly been contended by the appellant Prem Motors that due to leakage in water pump the temperature of the engine rise and vehicle was seized and as per warranty condition the appellants cannot be held liable for the defects caused by misuse or negligence of the complainant. It was within the knowledge of the complainant that water pump is having leakage inspite of this he took the vehicle to Nawa and inspite of specific intimation of the appellant Prem Motors on 13.2.2015 that now water pump is available he has not cared to get it changed and further more even on 11.2.2015 the water pump could be changed from other service station situated at Jaipur or on way to Nawa. No manufacturing defect is shown by the complainant hence, the manufacturing company could not be held liable.

 

The appellant has rightly relied upon III (2015) CPJ 198 (NC) Ashwani Kumar Vs. Ford India Pvt.Ltd. where damage was caused to the vehicle due to negligence of the owner and repudiation was found justified. In view of the above, the

5

 

appellants cannot be held liable as the complainant himself was negligent.

 

Both the appeals are allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 14.9.2017 is set aside.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta) Member President

 

nm