Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/642

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY KR. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Date of Decision:   27.10.17   

 

                                                                                First Appeal No.642/2012

 

In the matter of:

1. M/s Competent Automobiles

Company Ltd.,

Plot No. 3, Ghazipur

Delhi East-110096.                                        

Also at:

Competent House

F-14, Connaught Place

New Delhi.

 

2. M/s Maruti Suzuki

A-25, Sector-34

Infocity, Opp. Hero Honda

Gurgaon, Haryana                                                                             ….Appellants

                       

Versus

            Shri Sanjay Kumar

            S/o Shri Tejpal Singh

R/o 1/11259, Gali No. 11

Subhash Park

North Shahdara, Delhi.                                                                     …Respondent

CORAM

 

HON’BLE SH. N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                   Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                          Yes

 

                                                                                                            JUDGEMENT

 

                Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 28^th Sept., 2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi-92. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum directed the manufacturer of the vehicle  i.e. OP 2 to rectify the defect in the vehicle within a period of 30 days.      In

the event of the defect not rectificable, OP 2 was directed to refund to the complainant therein an amount of Rs. 2,20,210/-.  Compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-  alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 3000/- were also awarded.  The aforesaid  orders were to be complied with within a period of 30 days failing which interest @ 9% per annum was leviable.

2.            Facts of the case are not in dispute. Maruti van (Omni LPG) manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP 2) was purchased by the complainant Shri Sanjay Kumar on 07.09.2007 for an amount of Rs.2,20,210/-.  Immediately after its purchase, complainant faced starting problem in LPG system.  He took the vehicle to the dealer named  M/s Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. (OP 1) on 16.09.2007.  Defect was not rectified.  Vehicle was again taken to OP 1 on 23.09.07, 16.10.07 and 06.11.07.  OP 1 asked the complainant to leave the vehicle for a period of 20 days for a thorough check up.  A trial was undertaken.  Defect persisted. On a joint trial run alongwith the mechanic of OP 1 it was revealed that vehicle used to stop while running on LPG.  Complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle from OP 1 thereafter. On a letter dated 14.08.2008 received from OP 1, complainant visited OP 1 and found that the problem was still existing.  Another trial run was undertaken in June 2009 with the mechanic of OP 1 but the problem continued.  Complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum.  Defence raised by OP 1 was that there was no major problem in the vehicle but the complainant abandoned the vehicle in its workshop.  OP 1 further submitted that its role was only to sell the vehicles manufactured by OP 2.  Liability if any was that of OP 2 and not OP 1.

3.            Defence was raised by OP 2 in relation to the period of limitation.  Contention of OP 2 was that its liability was limited upto warranty which was valid for a period of 24 months only.  OP 2 referred to the repairs carried out by OP 1 from time to time.  OP 2 submitted that the vehicle had been attended as per terms and conditions of warranty at all times.

4.            Ld. District Forum referred to the job cards dated 16.09.2007, 23.09.2007 and 16.10.2007.  These related to the starting problem only. Ld. District Forum observed that the new vehicle had run only 170 kms in a period of three months of its purchase.  It kept on lying with the OP 1 thereafter. During this period, OP 1 wrote a letter dated 17.06.09 to the complainant.  Cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant on 17.06.2009 and the complaint was filed on 13.08.2010 i.e. within the period of limitation.

5.            Present appeal has been filed on the grounds interalia that the complaint was barred by limitation. Contention of OP 2 is that the cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on 06.11.2007 when he left his vehicle at the workshop of OP 1. Ld.  Counsel for the appellant Shri Vipin Singhania has taken this Commission through grounds D and E of the appeal.  Ground D related to the point of limitation as referred. In support of point E, appellant submitted that its engineers noticed abrasion in LPG system of some Omni vehicles.  Letters were issued to all LPG vehicle owners including the complainant.  Complainant did not bring the vehicle for examination.  Appellant also submitted that the said letter did not extend the period of limitation.

6.            Appellant has laid stress upon on the point of limitation.  Appellant contended that the period of limitation started on 06.11.2007 when the complainant left the vehicle at the workshop of OP 1. Perusal of the record show that on his visit to the workshop on 06.01.07, complainant was asked to leave the vehicle for a period of 20 days for a thorough check up.  Trial runs were undertaken. In June 2009, again a trial run was undertaken on the request of OP 1.  Even the mechanic of OP 1 participated in the said trial run.  Plea of OP 2 to the effect that the cause of action arose on 06.11.2007,  is, therefore, devoid of merits.  It is the admitted case of the appellant/OP 2 that abrasion in the LPG system of omni vehicles were noticed and letters were written to the purchasers of the vehicles. No separate letter allegedly was written to the complainant prior to the letter dated 17.06.2009.  In so far as the defect of the vehicle was concerned the complainant had approached OP 1.  The letter dated 17.06.2009 supports the case of the complainant to the effect that the LPG vehicles had an inherent defect in them.

7.            The manufacturer of the vehicle in the present case i.e. the appellant/OP 2 instead of removing the defect in the vehicle as per directions of the district forum filed the present appeal on frivolous grounds. It is not the case of appellant/OP 2 that he ever made an attempt to remove the defect of the vehicle. Impugned orders were passed on 28.09.2012.  The vehicle is lying in the workshop of OP 1 since 06.11.2007 i.e. for a period of 10 years. Obviously it has become a scrap. Now it is no more roadworthy. If appellant/OP 2 removes the manufacturing defect.  In the circumstances impugned orders dated 28.05.2012 are modified as under:

                That the appellant/OP 2 shall refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,20,210/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 28.06.2012 after the expiry of a period of 30 days from the date of order till the date of its payment.  These orders shall be complied with by the appellant/OP 2 within a period of 30 days from today failing which it shall carry interest @ 24% per annum.  OP 2 can take possession of the vehicle, if it so wishes. Respondent shall also transfer documents of the vehicle in favour of OP 2 or any other person as asked for by OP 2. Amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 3000/- are not interfered with.  Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

                File be sent to record room.

                                                                                                                                                (N P Kaushik)

                                                                                                                                                Member(Judicial)