Delhi

New Delhi

CC/610A/2006

Chamberl Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001.

 

Case No.CC/610-A/2006                               Dated:

In the matter of:         

SH. CHAMBERL KHAN

R/O. A-21, NIZAMUDDIN (EAST),

FIRST FLOOR, NEW DELHI.

                  ……..  COMPLAINANT

           

VERSUS

 

1.       MARUTI UDYOG LTD.

          REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE

          11TH FLOOR, JEEVAN PRAKASH

          25, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG

NEW DELHI-110001.

 

2.       HISSAR AUTOMOBILES

          5TH MILESTONE, SIRSA ROAD

          HISSAR, HARYANA.

      ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

MEMBER: RITU GARODIA

The complainant  booked a Suzuki Grand Vitara Car silky silver from OP2 for sum of Rs.18,79,549/- on 13.4.05  Booking form is annexed with the complaint.  The complainant became aware that Euro III Model would be available in the market and changed his booking to Grand Vitara XL-7(E-III) on 14.5.2005 for Rs.19,58,259/-.  The vehicle was delivered on 28.6.2005  The gate pass showed the model to be “Grand Vitara XL-7, confirm to NORMS MPF1” and year  of manufacture to be 2005.  The colour of vehicle was beige and front rubber flap and bumper were found handing.  The plate inside the bonett revealed the year and date of manufacture to be September, 2004.

OP2 in its WS had admitted in Para 11 that the vehicle was delivered on a bonafide presumption as to year of manufacture to be 2005 OP-1 being the manufacturer had delivered the vehicle in 2005 and therefore OP-2 should be absolve for this over sight. It is further stated that Euro III model not being available, the complainant was shown Euro-II Model Beige colour and accordingly, a discount was given and accepted.

OP-1 in its written submission has concluded that no allegation against the company has been made and no manufacturing defects has been referred to in the complaint.  However, it has been admitted in Para 15 that  2004 model was sold as 2005 model by a mistake made by officials of OP2 and as such OP1 be discharged from the matter.

Perusal of rival contentions reveal that the main grievance of consumer is related to colour and year of manufacture.  Once the consumer has accepted the colour which is visible to naked eye he cannot raise subsequent contention regarding the same .  The fact that the model of car was 2004 and Gate Pass was issued mentioning 2005 as year of manufacture is not disputed by all parties.  Nonetheless, OP1 and OP2 are shunning their own liability by shifting the blame on each other Scrutiny of documents annexed reveals that “Gate Pass” was issued by OP2 with no involvement of OP1.  It was for OP2 to enquire and explain how the year of manufacture was wrongly mentioned without physically verifying the vehicle in question.  For this internal mismanagement of OP2 consumer cannot be saddled with an older model.  It is well known that vehicle depreciaties in value every year and no rational person in possession of all his facilities would purchase model of previous year vehicle while paying the full price.  The complainant has suffered loss in receiving a depreciated car on full payment based on wrong promises and erroneous averments in gate pass. 

The acts of OP2 falls squarely within the deficiency in services and is directed to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation for unfair trade practice, false averment, negligence causing  harassment and mental agony to helpless consumers.  We also award Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 03.06.2015.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)               (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.