KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 479/2010

JUDGMENT DATED:  10-05-2011

PRESENT:

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN     :  MEMBER

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :  MEMBER

APPELLANT

M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

Formerly known as Maruti Udyog Ltd.,

Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. V. Santharam & G.S. Prakash)

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.      Rosy Devassy,

W/o Prof. Devassy,

R/o Chakkungal House,

Sreemoolanagaram P.O.,

Ernakulam District.

2.      Rajeev,

          Manager, Maruti Udyog Ltd.,

          Tuttoos Tower, 2^nd Floor,

          Palarivattom, Cochin.

                   (R1 rep. by Adv. Smt. Anitha M.N.)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

          This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.6.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.22/07 by the 1^st opposite party who is under orders to pay Rs.50000/- to the complainant as compensation with 9% interest from the dated fixed for compliance of the order.

2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she has purchased a Baleno LXi car from the opposite parties and that the vehicle developed some defects after running only 2351 KMs. It was observed  that the engine had broken and the vehicle was taken by the  representative of the 1^st opposite party and it was found that crankshaft was broken at front end and the vehicle was kept for repairs on 21.12.05.  Though the complainant was heavily in need of the car, the vehicle was delivered only on 20.6.2006 and that the complainant had suffered great inconveniences and mental agony due to the delay in delivery after the rectification of defects.  The complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with cost of the proceedings.

3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that the complainant was given a stand by car for her use and the same was returned on 9..2..06 voluntarily by the complainant.  It was also submitted that the necessary repairs were properly done and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 on her side.  On the side of the opposite parties DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked.  It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and 1^st respondent/complainant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is per se illegal and unsustainable.  It is his case that the relationship between the appellant Company and the dealers is on principal – to principal basis and that if at all any delay in delivery had occurred at the hands of the dealer only the dealer can be held liable.  He has also argued that the appellant/company had taken every effort to repair the engine properly and it was the complainant who had committed the delay in taking delivery of  the vehicle.  Inviting our attention to Ext.A4 the learned counsel advanced the contentions that the appellants had informed the complainant/respondent that the vehicle was ready for delivery after the necessary repairs and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  He also advanced the contention that since the appellant/company had offered stand by car of the same make to the complainant, the complainant had not been put to any trouble, mental agony or other hardships.  He has also submitted before us that the complainant herself had returned the car on 9.2.06 and in such a situation it was unfair on the part of the complainant to file a complaint claiming compensation and cost.

7. On the other hand the counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  It is argued that the 1^st opposite party had taken the responsibility of repairing the car and replacement of ½ of the engine.  It is very clear that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It is further submitted that 1^st opposite party had demanded the car back, on  9.2.06 and it was returned on that day hoping that the repaired car would be delivered immediately.  The learned counsel advanced the further contentions that there was no relationship between the dealer and the complainant with regard to the manufacturing defect and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in detaining the car till 17.6.06 on which date replacement of the engine   in Ext.A1, RC book, was endorsed.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, 1^st respondent/complainant and also on perusing the records we find that it is the admitted case  of all the parties that the car was entrusted to the dealer for repairs on 24.12.05.  It is also seen that the car was delivered  only on 20.6.06 after the engine replacement endorsement on 17.6.06.  It is also found that the complainant was given a stand by car from 24..12..05 to 9.2.06.  The learned counsel for the appellant has much relied on Ext.A4 wherein it is stated that the car was ready for delivery after repairs and it was the complainant who abstained from taking delivery of the vehicle.  On a perusal and Ext.A4 we find that letter is dated 21.1.06 and it contains an information that the vehicle was given  for repairs on 21.12.05 and is ready for delivery after all necessary repairs.  The letter is sent by the dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  But the facts and circumstances will clearly show that the vehicle was not repaired on 21. 1.2006 as it is found that the complainant  was given a stand by car till 9.2.06 and it was only on 17.6.06 that the engine replacement endorsement was obtained by the opposite parties.  We are at a loss to understand why the opposite parties had failed in explaining the delay for all these months.  It can be seen that Ext.A4 is sent only to circumvent the situation.  It is also to be noted that it was the 1^st opposite party who had taken the responsibility of replacement of the engine though it is only ½ engine and they ought to have informed the complainant timely regarding the replacement of the engine.  The Forum below had appreciated all these aspects in its correct perspective and we find that the findings of the Forum are conclusive.

9.      It is also observed that the Forum below had awarded Rs.50000/- as compensation.  It is true that the complainant was deprived of the use of the vehicle from 24.12.05 till 20^th June 2006.  However it is seen that the complainant was given a stand by vehicle till 9.2.06.  The complainant as also not adduced cogent evidence to support her claim for compensation.  We are of the opinion that the amount awarded is on a higher side and a sum of Rs.25000/- will be just and proper to meet the ends of justice.  The complainant is entitled for the said amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order of the Forum below till payment.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications that the complainant is entitled for Rs.25000/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of the order of the Forum below till payment.  The amount is to be paid by the appellant/1^st opposite party.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                             S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

                         VALSALA SARANGADHARAN  :  MEMBER

ps