Haryana

StateCommission

A/573/2015

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PO0JA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

SALIL SABHLOK

20 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.573 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 08.07.2015

Date of Decision: 20.03.2017

 

Maruti Suzuki India Limited Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Mrs. Pooja Rani W/o Shri Mohinder Kumar R/o House NO.17, New Pipliwala town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

2.      Berkeley Automobiles Ltd. Plot No.87, Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula.

3.      Modern Automobiles, Plot No.318, Industrial Area, Phase II, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Salil Sablok, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.P.S.Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Saurab Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                   Mr. Aftab Singh proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

     It was alleged by complainant that she purchased car from O.P. No.1 on 19.12.2012 for Rs.6,89,430/-.  On 28.07.2013, engine of car suddenly stopped and after few days her husband took car to workshop and during that process car stopped three times.    O.Ps. advised him to take car to Drook Auto Service Station. She reached Drook Auto Service Station, where manager told that their workman was on leave for 10 to 15 days. Thereafter on 14.08.2013 her husband again visited service station. Mechanic checked the car and told that diesel filter was to be replaced which was not available in Leh and was arranged from Chandigarh. Several times her husband visited the service station, but, car was not repaired. Her husband sent e-mail to O.Ps., but to no avail.  Vehicle was again repaired by Drook Auto Service Station, but, problem was persisting. On 23.10.2013 engine of car again stopped when his husband visited Shimla.  Thereafter she visited O.P.No.2 for repair of car and head mechanic told that there was manufacturing defect in the car.  He also told that most of the cars manufactured before Oct. 2013 were facing that kind of problem. O.P.NO.2 asked her to get replaced half engine, but, she refused.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate replies.  It was alleged by O.P. No.1 that  she never approached it and denied that cars manufactured before October 2013 were facing any kind of problem. There was no deficiency in service on it’s part.

3.      O.P.No.2 submitted that she purchased vehicle on 19.12.2012 from O.P.No.1. First service was done on 02.01.2013 and second service was got done on 28.02.2013 from O.P.No.1. Engine started giving problem for the first time on 21.09.2013 when vehicle was at Ladakh.   On 23.10.2013 her vehicle was checked  and was kept under observation, but, no such problem i.e. knocking/missing was found at that time.  She obtained warranty for a period of four years or 80000 Kms i.e. if any part was found having manufacturing defect, the same was to be replaced free of costs.  It was willing to repair vehicle as per warranty terms and conditions stipulated by MSIL.

4.      O.P.No.3 alleged that as per clause 5 of dealership agreement, dealer should not be deemed to be agent or representative for any purpose. It was manufacturer of car who gave warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000 kms whichever was earlier. The vehicle was inspected on 21.09.2013 and 23.10.2013. Service engineer detected use of adulterated fuel effecting performance of vehicle.  The Oil filter was replaced with new one on two occasions. The problem arose due to use of adulterated fuel and that did not fall under warranty as per clause 4 (e) of warranty agreement. 

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short “District Forum”). allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated  22.04.2015 and directed as under:-

                   “a)     O.P.No.3 shall either provide a brand new car of the same make to the petitioner without any payment being made by7 the latter therefore or O.P.No.3 may get the manufacturing defect removed at its own cost and to the satisfaction of the complainant. In case OP No.3 opts for the latter course of action, the removal of the manufacturing defect shall be certified by an independent team of experts appointed by and with the consent of the complainant and O.P.No.3.

                   b)      The O.P.No.3 shall, in any eventuality, pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony, harassment and trauma suffered by the latter and that amount shall include the amount of Rs.22,472/-          which was charged by PEC for expert opinion.

                   c)      OP No.3 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.3-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that as per report Ex.A-8 it cannot be presumed that there is manufacturing defect because it is mentioned therein that problem may be attributed to manufacturing defect and not specifically mentioned that there was manufacturing defect. Even otherwise vehicle should have been got checked from ARAI as mentioned in reply of application because the same is competent authority to inspect automobile.  Due to use of sub-standard fuel this problem occurred. So, learned District Forum wrongly came to conclusion that there was manufacturing defect and the impugned order be set aside. 

9.      We do not agree with this contention.  It is well settled proposition of law that benefit of doubt is to be given to the consumer and not to the opposite party  as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.4544 of 2012 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gopanaboina Sathyam decided on 27.11.2013 and Revision Petition No.3236 of 2013 titled as Sh. Abhishek Jain Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 07.08.2014.  It is mentioned in Annexure A-8 that pick-up of vehicle was not proper and problem can be attributed to manufacturing defect. To remove this  suspicion appellant-O.P. was also at liberty to ask learned District Forum to send vehicle to ARAI for testing which has not been done.  There is no evidence on the file to show that complainant was using adulterated fuel.  O.Ps. were at liberty to take sample of the fuel at the time of service and get the same tested.  Even if it is not specifically mentioned in Annexure A-8 that there was manufacturing defect, benefit of doubt is to be given to the consumer and not to the opposite party as discussed above. In these circumstances it is duty of the appellant to remove the defect as opined by learned District Forum.  Hence appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

March 20th, 2017    Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                     Addl.Bench             

S.K.