STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.403 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 01.11.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 23.11.2010

Ms. Neeru D/o Sh. T. D. Chug resident of House No.518, Sector 10, Chandgiarh.

……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

1.      M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 015 through its Chief General Manager.

2.      M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Office, North-II, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, U.T., Chandigarh 160 008 through its Regional Manager.

3.      Tricity Autos, Maruti Suzuki Authorised Dealer, Zirakpur Patiala Highway near Nabha Sahib Gurudwara, Zirakpur, Punjab through its Managing Director.

              ....Respondents/OPs.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS.  NEENA  SANDHU,  MEMBER

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL,  MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP   SINGH   MAHAL,   MEMBER.

1.                     This is complainant’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act) against the order dated 24.9.2010, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by her for compensation was dismissed.

2.                     The complainant/appellant had purchased a Maruti 800 car from Tricity Autos, Maruti Suzuki Authorised Dealer, Zirakpur Patiala Highway (OP No.3) vide Retail Invoice dated 25.1.2009 (Annexure C-1). The Sales Certificate is Annexure C-3 and the Certificate of Registration (Annexure C-2). The contention of the complainant is that from the very beginning, the car had been giving problems, there was hamming in the gearbox and it was sent to OP No.3, but the defects were not removed/rectified and constantly the same problem is being given by the car. According to the complainant/appellant, as and when she asked for the reasons, OP No.3 replied that it had a manufacturing problem for which she should approach OP No.1 manufacturer. It was also alleged that the car is 2008 model but it was sold to the complainant alleging that it was 2009 model. She made a complaint to the OPs but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. She also served a legal notice dated 19.5.2009, to which no reply was sent. According to her, OP No.3 has played fraud on her and she, therefore, filed the present complaint asking for a compensation of Rs.1 Lac; Rs.25,000/- for mental and physical torture with interest @18% per annum and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                     The complaint was opposed by OPs No.1 and 2 alleging that there is no manufacturing defect in the car nor has any been specified by the complainant. It was alleged that the car is 2009 model and they have no concern as to what transpired between the complainant and OP No.3 from whom the car was purchased. They denied if the Consumer Fora had the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

4.                     The contention of OP No.3 is that the car is 2009 model, they had received the consignment on 25.1.2009 and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the same date. When the complainant raised the dispute, a survey was conducted in her presence on 15.2.2009 and she was fully satisfied about the year of the manufacture of the car. Even the Registration Authority, Panchkula registered the vehicle as of 2009 and the contention of the complainant that it was of 2008 model was not correct. They denied if they adopted any unfair trade practice.

5.                     Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                     After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.9.2009 on the ground of jurisdiction as well as on merits. The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.

7.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and have perused the record.

8.                     The complainant took two grounds to claim compensation, one is that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect and the second that it was of 2008 model but was sold to her as 2009 model.

9.                     As regards the first, the complainant did not specify as to what the defect in the car was. Needless to mention that the complainant had taken the vehicle to the OPs for free services and no such defect was ever intimated. Had there been any defect, the complainant would have reported the same at the time of service or otherwise by taking the vehicle to the workshop to get the same rectified. The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove what the defect is. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly concluded that no manufacturing defect was found in the vehicle.

10.                   The complainant did not produce any evidence to suggest if the vehicle was of 2008 model. Her contention that from the parts installed in the vehicle, it appears to be 2008 model cannot be accepted as correct because no such part or identification mark thereon has been mentioned either in the complaint or in the affidavit to suggest if the said part was of 2008 model. The vehicle has been registered by the Motor Vehicles Authority, Panchkula vide Annexure C-2 having been manufactured in January 2009. The contention of OP No.2 is that the car was sent by OPs No.1 and 2 on 24.1.2009 vide Annexure OP-3/1 and was received by them on 25.1.2009 and was delivered to the complainant the same day. It was, therefore, not that vehicle, which was already lying with OP No.3 before the start of 2009 and was sold by them projecting it to be of 2009 model. The contention of the complainant in this respect is also not proved to be correct.

11.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint being devoid of merit. The impugned order is perfectly legal and valid. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

12.       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

23^rd  November 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.403 of 2010)

Argued by:          Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the appellant.

Dated the 23^rd day of November, 2010.

ORDER

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed in limine.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.403 of 2010)

Present:          Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for the appellant.

Dated the 22^nd day of November, 2010.

ORDER

                        Heard. Reserved for orders.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER