cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2012
Filed on : 20-07-2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 439/2012
Between
Eldho Abraham, : Complainant
Kaduvamkulam, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Thekkekara house, Road, Muvattupuzha)
Mannathoor P.O.,
Muvattupuzha-686 667.
And
M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., : Opposite party
Regional Office, Tutus Tower, (Absent)
Padivattom, Palarivattom P.O.,
Kochi-682 025.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant purchased a Maruti Ritz VDI car from M/s. Motors Ltd, Kottayam on 15-10-2010. Exorbitant smoke emission has been noticed from the car right from the beginning. The matter was brought to the notice of M/s. Indus Motors, Muvattupuzha, the authorized service centre of the opposite party. On 08-11-2010 after the first service also the very same complaint persisted. The matter was brought to the notice of the service centre. Whenever the vehicle was brought for servicing though they have done several works no improvement was noticed, the smoke emission has been increasing day by day. On 28-04-2012 the EGR system was cleaned and the complainant paid Rs. 1,500/-. After the work engine noise occurred and the injector was cleaned and the opposite party collected Rs. 326/- On 16-05- 2012 as well several works were done but to no avail. At the instance of the opposite party Mr. Haridas, the territorial service engineer and his team inspected the vehicle. But they could not rectify the defects. The emission of exorbitant quantity of smoke is due to inherent manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The complainant is entitled to get the car replaced with a new one and also entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. In spite of receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite party decided not to contexts the matter for reasons of their own which speaks for itself. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant.
3. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement ;of his
car with a new one as claimed ?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of
Rs. 1,00,000/- and the costs of proceedings?
4. Points Nos. i&ii. Evidently the complainant purchased a maruti Ritz car manufactured by the opposite party. Exts. A1 series goes to show that time and again the complainant had to approach the service centers of the opposite party to get the defects of the vehicle rectified. According to the complainant since the vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defect he is entitled to get a hassle free vehicle from the opposite party instead of the defective one.
5. It is pertinent to note that admittedly there is nothing on record to substantiate the contention of the complainant that the vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defect except for their saying so. According to the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for proving the fact of manufacturing defect of a vehicle expert opinion is necessary. (Kumari Namrata Singh Vs. Manager, Indus-A Division of Electrothem & Anr. 2012 (3) CPR 570 (NC). According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court a consumer is only entitled to get replacement of the defective part if the defect is proved not the vehicle as such (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Another (2006) 4 SCC 644).
6. However the Hon’ble Apex court in C.N. Anantharam Vs. M/s. Fiat India Ltd. AIR 2011 Supreme Court 527, stated in Para 5 as under :
“In the said order, the National Commission held as follows :
.......Therefore, while we hold that the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect, all the same, the dealer and the manufacturer are directed to remove the defect, if any, in the vehicle make it roadworthy, if necessary by reconditioning the vehicle and deliver it to the complainant in the presence of an independent technical expert mutually agreed upon by the complainant and opposite parties and for this purpose any of the party may apply to the District Forum for appointing such expert if it is not mutually agreed upon by the parties. The expert shall certify that the vehicle is free from any defect which shall be final for all purposes. This should be done within a period of three months. The opposite parties, thereafter, to provide a warranty for one year from the date of delivery, the revision petitions are accordingly disposed of in these terms. Under the peculiar facts of the case, there would be no order for costs.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant special Leave petitions challenging the order of the National Commission.”
Further, the Apex Court held in paragraph 16 and 17 as follows :-
“16. In such circumstances, the order passed by the National Commission impugned in these Special Leave Petitions does not appear to be unreasonable whatever reason, except for a mere 800 kilometers the Petitioner has not used the vehicle after it was delivered and has, on the other hand, made several complaints in an attempt to prove that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The National Commission has taken all these matters into consideration in giving the impugned directions regarding delivery of the vehicle to the petitioner after having the same properly checked by an independent technical expert who would have to certify that the vehicle was free from any defect when it is delivered.
17. From the facts as disclosed, it appears that apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine and the gear box, there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation, particularly when the engine was replaced with a new one. However, in addition to the directions given by the National Commission, we direct that if the independent technical expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and the life time tax and EMI along with interest @ 12% per annum and costs, as directed by the State Commission.”
7. In the instant case, we feel that a direction to the opposite party to take necessary steps in tune with the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case is enough to meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. To uphold rule of law, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum if he is aggrieved by the decision of the opposite party. No order as to compensation and costs.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of vehicle history
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 23-05-2012
A3 : Copy of job card retail invoice
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
