Date of Filing : 25.03.2010
Date of Order : 05.09.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 5th SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 647 / 2010
Mr. Chandrashekar,
S/o. Late Mr. Nanjappa,
Aged 37 years,
R/o. No. 24, 1st ‘B’ Main Road,
Sanjeevini Nagar, Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bangalore – 560 072. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director & CEO,
Head Office: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070.
2. The Regional Manager,
M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Regional Office: #202, 2nd Floor,
Embassy Classic, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
3. The Managing Director / Chairman,
M/s. RNS Motors Ltd.,
Distributor of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd.,
#2275, Tumkur Road, (Opp. MEI),
Yeswanthpur,
Bangalore – 560 022. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the OPs to pay compensation along with interest.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant had purchased a Maruti Wagon-R Car bearing Regn. No. KA-41/N-1810 vide Invoice dtd. 30.12.2009 from OP3 manufactured by Ops 1 & 2 by paying total amount of Rs.4,15,000/- including Registration fee, Road Tax & Insurance. The said vehicle was delivered on 04.01.2010. When the Complainant and his family members traveling back from Tumkur to Bangalore on 27.01.2010 after attending the marriage ceremony, the vehicle dragged suddenly to the left side even though he was maintaining a constant speed of 40 kms. Due to mechanical problem of the right side rear wheel alignment, the vehicle fell to almost 15 feet down the tank taking 2 to 3 summer salts and turns and resulted in a serious accident. Due to mechanical manufacturing defect of the right hand side rear wheel alignment, the right hand rear wheel separated / dislocated from the Car causing grievous accident and Complainant and the inmates of the Car have suffered physical injuries and took treatment at Mathrushree Hospital, Nelamangala. Police have registered a case in Crime No. 19/2010 against Ops. In the accident Car was completely damaged. As per the report of the RTO Inspector, the accident occurred due to sudden dislocation of the right side rear wheel with breakdrum from the motor vehicle after shaking of the breakdrum due to the displacement of the circlip which holds the breakdrum and its bearing and observed that the circlip was twisted which is a mechanical defect of the motor vehicle. Complainant has written a Letter to the OP requesting to rectify the defect and not to release the Cars which are mechanically defective, but there was no proper feedback. Hence, Complainant filed the Complaint claiming Rs.19,65,000/- towards cost of vehicle and compensation from the Ops.
3. Ops 1 & 2 have filed version stating that the vehicle met with alleged accident due to rash & negligent driving of the Complainant and thee is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. They have sold more than 9 Lakhs vehicles and not a single such defect has been noticed. As per the inspection of vehicle by expert engineers, the alleged accident occurred due to plying vehicle in rash & negligent manner in high speed and subsequently loosing control over the vehicle causing vehicle slipped on the left side of the road hitting hard rocky surface and the wheel drum broke due to the external hard hit. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of proper & necessary parties. Complainant did not implead M/s. Mandovi Motors where the vehicle in question was towed after the accident. Complainant took away the vehicle parts / wheel from the workshop and delivered the same at the Police Station. OP is an ISO Certified Company and is world renowned for stringent quality checks at every level of production of vehicles. Complainant took the delivery of the vehicle to his entire satisfaction. The vehicle slipped towards left side only due to loss of control over the vehicle due to negligence of the Complainant and the vehicle turned turtle and rear right wheel hitting rocky surface on high impact causing wheel drum to broke and wheel dislodged. As per the observations made by the experts, the alleged accident is due to negligence of the Complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect. There is no negligence on the part of Ops. Hence, Ops 1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. OP3 filed separate version denying all the allegations made by the Complainant. From the date of sale of the Car till the date of alleged accident, there is no deficiency in the services. The amount claimed by the Complainant is exorbitant, baseless and without any valid ground or reason. OP3 is not liable to pay any amount or compensation as claimed by the Complainant. Hence, OP3 prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
5. Parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. Advocates for the parties have also submitted written arguments. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties, affidavit evidence & documents carefully. Arguments are heard.
6. In the light of the arguments advanced before us, the following points have arisen for consideration.
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of Ops ?
(2) Whether the Complainants have proved manufacturing defects of the vehicle Wagon-R ?
(3) Whether the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.4,15,000/- from the Ops?
(4) Whether the Complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- for the injuries suffered by himself & family members due the accident?
(5) Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.14.00 Lakhs for mental agony & trauma.
(6) Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief ?
REASONS
7. It is admitted case of the parties that the Complainant had purchased Maruti Wagon-R Car bearing Regn. No. KA-41/N-1810 from OP3 showroom who is the distributor of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. According to the Complainant, he has paid Rs.3,10,191/- to the OP3 towards cost of the vehicle and he has paid Rs.1,15,000/- towards Registration, Road Tax and Insurance. Total amount paid by the Complainant has been mentioned as Rs.4,15,000/- (it should be Rs.4,25,191/-). Complainant took delivery of the Car on 04.01.2010 from the Showroom. Complainant is an employee of E-TV Kannada working as Senior Manager. On 27.01.2010 at about 2.45 PM while he along with his family i.e., his wife Swetha, daughter Sia, his sister-in-law Navitha, his son Daksh and his father-in-law Govindaraju were traveling from Tumkur towards Bangalore after attending the marriage ceremony in Tumkur. When the vehicle was on NH4 highway near Billanakote, Hosahalli Tank, it suddenly dragged to the left side. Complainant tried to take the vehicle to his control, the vehicle toppled and dragged for several feet on the road and fell almost 15 feet down the Tank, thereby resulted in serious accident all the inmates of the Car suffered shock. It is the case of the Complainant that the said accident was due to mechanical defect of the right side rear Wheel alignment of the vehicle. The Complainant and the inmates suffered injuries in the said mishap which was due to mechanical & manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Complainant has submitted that right side Wheel came out from the vehicle and its breakdrum was broken to pieces. Nelamangala Police rushed to the spot. Complainant lodged police complaint to the Nelamangala Police on 27.01.2010 itself. The Police have registered a case in Crime No. 19/2010 for the offence punishable u/s. 337 of IPC against RNS Motors and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and submitted FIR to the JMFC, Nelamangala. Complainant has produced copy of FIR and copy of Complaint lodged to the Police. The Police took-up investigation. During the course of investigation, Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Government of Karnataka, Transport Department, had been asked by the Sub Inspector of Police to inspect the vehicle and to give the report about mechanical condition of the vehicle and the cause of accident. In accordance with the requisition received from the Sub Inspector of Police, the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Transport Department, inspected the vehicle in question and had observed the mechanical condition of the vehicle. He has also noted the cause of accident in his report. Complainant has produced report issued by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles. Inspector has noted the cause of accident in his report as follows:
“I am of the opinion that the accident occurred due to the sudden dislocation (came off) of the right side rear wheel with breakdrum from the motor vehicle after shaking of the breakdrum due to the displacement of the circlip which holds the breakdrum and its bearing and observed that the circlip was twisted which is a mechanical defect of the motor vehicle”
8. The Nelamangala Police after investigation of the matter, ultimately submitted Charge Sheet against the Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., for the offence punishable u/s. 287 & 337 of the IPC copy of which has been produced by the Complainant. As per the version of the OPs and written arguments also, it has been stated that the vehicle manufactured by the OP1 undergo stringent quality control tests and get certified final check OK (FCOK) before invoicing to dealer destinations. The dealers also carryout pre-delivery inspection (PDI) of the vehicles before selling to their customers. They have further stated that in the instant case FCOK of the vehicle was carried out on 10.11.2009 and PDI on 25.11.2009 by the dealer and they have submitted that the vehicle delivered to the Complainant was in perfect roadworthy and OK condition. When this is a clear defence of the Ops, nothing prevented them to produce final check OK (FCOK), pre delivery inspection (PDI) report before this Forum to show that before delivery of the vehicle to the Complainant vehicle was perfectly roadworthy and OK condition. Ops have not produced these two important documents to prove their defence for the reasons best known to them. Non production of these documents goes against the case of the Ops. Adverse inference can be drawn for non production of important documents by the Ops. Had the Ops produced FCOK & PDI, then it could have been established that the vehicle sold to the Complainant was roadworthy and OK condition. But, for the reasons best known to them, these important documents have been withheld and not produced before this Forum. Under these circumstances, the case put up by the Complainant is that the vehicle was having manufacturing defects and on account of that defect only serious accident took place within 25 days of the purchase of the vehicle and due to the said accident Complainant and his family members suffered physically & mentally. The Complainant having filed the Complaint to the Police, Police took the investigation and during the course of investigation Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Government of Karnataka, Transport Department had been asked to inspect the vehicle and submitted the report. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles is a government servant working under the Government of Karnataka. It is expected that every government servant discharges their duties honestly and with all sincerity. No bias can be attributed to the government servant. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles after inspecting the vehicle in question has given his report stating that the accident was due to displacement of circlip which holds the breakdrum and circlip was twisted which is a mechanical defect of the motor vehicle. The report of the Inspector shall have to be believed and accepted in this case. The Police after finding out the prima facie case of offence and after completing the investigation had also submitted Charge Sheet against Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for the offence punishable u/s. 287 & 337 of the IPC. This fact will be sufficient to come to conclusion that the vehicle delivered by the OP3 to the Complainant was having manufacturing defect. Consumer Protection Act is a social & benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. Complaints are being disposed off in a summary manner on the basis of documents and affidavit evidence, since the Complainant has produced very important document i.e., report of Inspector of Motor Vehicles, that will be sufficient evidence and document to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Ops relied on judgement of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal reported in 1998 (1) CPR 184. On going through the judgement, it was the case in respect of bursting of tyres and tyre was not produced before the Forum and it was not sent for proper analysis, so under these circumstances it was held that manufacturing defect was not proved. Ops have also relied upon another decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, reported in 1998 (3) CPR 152. This is a case wherein their Lordship have held that it is a settled law that unless proper evidence is led, anything appearing in newspaper is hearsay and further it was held that the case of the Complainant cannot be accepted on so called admission or on principle of res ipsa loquitor. Again with all due respects, these rulings cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. It is admitted position of Law that without there being certificate of fitness and roadworthiness no new, vehicle can be marketed and no Company or dealer is supposed to sell any such vehicles to the customers without FCOI & PDI. In this case, Ops having failed to produce these important documents now cannot contend that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The irresistible conclusion would be that the vehicle sold by OP3 was having manufacturing defects and that led to fatal accident and thereby his family members suffered injury. Therefore, Complainant is right in asking refund of the amount paid by him from the Ops. OP No. 1 is world renowned Automobile manufacturing Company. It should take responsibility with all grace & dignity. If the Company receives the Complaints from the customers, it should take very seriously and make thorough enquiry and investigate and the matter should be set-right immediately to the satisfaction of the customers. Company should be thankful to the Complainant in bringing to its notice the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. OP1 Company cannot treat itself as opponent in this case, on the other hand Company should take immediate steps so that customers are not put into loss or harassment in any way. Customers’ satisfaction should be their goal & motto of any Company. Taking into consideration of all the facts & circumstances of the case, Ops shall have to be directed to refund Rs.4.15 Lakhs to the Complainant. The vehicle is insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd. It has been submitted during the course of arguments that claim before the Insurance Company is still pending. If the Insurance Company settles the claim, whatever the amount that will be given by the Insurance Company, Ops shall receive that amount for which Complainant has to give his “no objection” to that effect. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant during the course of arguments has also fairly submitted that his client will give “no objection” to the Ops for receiving the insurance claim amount. This submission is recorded.
10. The Complainant has claimed damages for mental agony & trauma on account of deficiency of service rendered by the Ops. It is the case of the Complainant that in the accident the inmates of the vehicle were injured and suffered mental shock & trauma. Complainant has produced Wound Certificates of his wife Smt. Swetha and his sister-in-law Ms. Navitha and as per the Wound Certificates, both have suffered simple injuries. Except these Wound Certificates, Complainant has not produced any other Certificates or documents of treatment or vouchers & bills of the medicines etc. So, taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances of the case, it would be just, fair & reasonable to award Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, shock & trauma. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed. Ops 1 to 3 are jointly & severally directed to pay Rs.4,15,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of the vehicle.
Ops are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, shock & trauma suffered by the Complainant & his family members.
Ops are further directed to pay interest @ 9% P.A. on Rs.4,15,000/- from the date of filing of Complaint till the date of payment / realization.
Ops are also directed to comply the order within 60 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the Ops.
Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 5th day of September 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
MEMBER MEMBER
SSS
