These above revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners M/s. Chowgule Industries Ltd. and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. against the order dated 27.03.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa Panji, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.21 of 2010.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant purchased the vehicle Maruti Swift ZXI on 05.08.2005.  The complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, North Goa, (in short the ‘District Forum’) that the vehicle had defects and was not functioning properly.  The opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte and the District Forum passed ex-parte order dated 15.07.2010 against the opposite parties and directed opposite parties to repair the car and to replace the parts if needed.  Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal bearing No.21/10 before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the appeal vide its order dated 27.03.2012 as under:-

“26.   In our view the complainant could be suitably compensated by directing O.P. Nos.1 & 2 to refund to the complainant half the purchase price i.e. Rs.2,44,000/- within a period of 30 days and in case the said sum is not paid to the complainant within 30 days, it shall carry interest at the rate of 9%, until payment.  In other words the complainant shall retain the car without returning it at half the price. Complainant would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- being the cost of the complaint as well as this appeal and another sum of 30,000/- for loss of time, tension and inconvenience.  The appeal and the complaint shall stand allowed on the above terms.  The sums herein ordered to be paid shall be paid by O.P.No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.”

3.      Hence the present revision petitions.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner M/s. Chowgule Industries Ltd. stated that the complainant had filed only two job cards.  The first card is dated 13.02.2007 and second job card is dated 12.06.2007. The vehicle was purchased on 05.08.2005 and there were many job cards available with the complainant, but he did not file the same before the District Forum because in those job cards nothing is mentioned about the complaint of the clutch.  Learned counsel stated that IA No.4974 of 2017 has been filed for taking these job cards on record and therefore, the same may be allowed.

6.      Learned counsel further pointed out that the District Forum has allowed the complaint and had only directed the opposite parties to repair the vehicle and to replace the parts if required. Though the petitioner was ex-parte before the District Forum, however, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal because petitioner was ready to repair the vehicle as per the order of the District Forum.  The complainant preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission and the State Commission has granted compensation to the complainant equal to 50% of the cost price of the vehicle.  On the one hand, the State Commission has observed the following in its order dated 27.03.2012 as under:-

“25.   There is no dispute that the complainant has otherwise been using the car in question and as on 13/8/07 within a span of two years the complainant’s car had run about 37,548 kms., thereby giving an yearly average of 18,774 kms.  We are almost seven years hence and the complainant’s car must have done by now about over 1,30,000 kms. or thereabout and in such situation, in our view, the complainant would not be entitled to, after such extensive use of the car, either for replacement of the car by new car or the return of its price as contemplated by clauses (b) & (c) respectively of sub section 1 of section 14 of the C.P., Act, 1986.  One may tend to argue that the complainant had no choice.  May be but the extensive use certainly is a factor to be taken note of at the time of assessing the compensation payable.  The complainant needs to be compensated for having had to use a car which makes a noise while shifting the gears.  Equities of the case for replacement or refund of price are not in favour of the complainant.”

7.      From the above observation of the State Commission, it is clear that in the body of the judgment, State Commission has not found any ground to allow the appeal, however, in the final operative portion of the order the State Commission has allowed huge compensation equal to 50% of the cost of the vehicle without giving any reason for the same.  Thus, the order of the State Commission is arbitrary and without any reasoning and the same is liable to be set aside.

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the defect in the clutch is reported for the first time after about more than one year and that is why the complainant filed the job cards dated 13.02.2007 & 12.06.2007 only along with complaint, though the complainant says that he alleged malfunctioning of the clutch right from the very beginning.  This assertion of the complainant is not supported by any document prior to job card dated 13.02.2007. Had there been a manufacturing defect, complainant could have reported the malfunctioning of the clutch while getting free services or other services from the dealer.  The State Commission has also observed that the vehicle has run about 37,000 kms. in two years and therefore, the State Commission assumed that by the time the matter was argued before the State Commission, the vehicle may have run about more than I00000 kms. Learned counsel argued that this itself proves that there was no manufacturing defect.  Had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have run so much of the kms.  The complainant had also not filed any other service report or the job card after filing of the complaint to prove that the clutch system was still malfunctioning.  In fact, the opposite parties had already replaced the clutch system as would be clear from job card dated 13.02.2007.  Even if any manufacturing defect was there, the liability of the opposite parties would only be limited to the replacement of the defective part and that responsibility was already discharged by the opposite party on 13.02.2007.

9.      Learned counsel for the other petitioner M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. stated that she agrees with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for M/s. Chowgule Industries Ltd.  There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and no deficiency can be attributed to the manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

10.    On the other hand, the complainant/respondent No.1 in person stated that the defect in the clutch was observed from the very beginning and it was reported to the dealer many times and after every service the defect continued and when the defect was not removed even after the alleged replacement of the clutch, the complaint was filed.  The State Commission has considered all the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has passed a reasoned order allowing 50% of the cost of the vehicle as compensation.  It was stated that the State Commission has only presumed that the vehicle would have run more than 100000 kms.  However, the fact is that the vehicle till today has run only about 87000 kms. The complainant is anyhow carrying the defective vehicle and obviously has been deprived of comfort of a new vehicle.

11.    Respondent/complainant further argued that there was enough opportunity for the petitioners to file documents that are being filed along with IA No.4974 of 2017 before the State Commission.  However, the petitioner chose not to file them there.  Now, that the order has been passed against the petitioners by the State Commission, the petitioners want to file certain new documents.  There is no provision to take fresh documents at the stage of revision petition.  The whole revision petition is based on the new documents which were not part of the record of the fora below and thus the revision petition is prima facie not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. 

12.    I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and have examined the record.  It is true that the complainant has only filed two job cards dated 13.02.2007 & 12.06.2007 and this goes to show that the problem in clutch was reported only after a year or so and the clutch was changed as is clear from job card dated 17.6.2007.  Then it was not a manufacturing defect, the District Forum ordered repair of vehicle and replacement of the defective parts if any.  The complainant did not take the vehicle for repairs, instead he preferred appeal before the State Commission.  On one side the State Commission observed that the complainant did not have any case on merits, however, the State Commission has still ordered the compensation equal to 50% of the cost of the vehicle to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party.  No specific grounds have been given by the State Commission for awarding for such a hefty compensation to the complainant.  On the other hand, it is also true that there must have been problem with the clutch system of the vehicle and that is why the opposite parties replaced the clutch on 13.02.2007.  In a way, this proves part of the case of the complainant. As the complainant has not filed the earlier or subsequent job cards, from the evidence it is not clear whether the complaint of the complainant is still continuing in respect of the clutch system of the vehicle.  However, it is clear that the vehicle has run about more than 80000 km., if not more than 100000 kms. as observed by the State Commission.  It is obvious that the complainant could not reap the benefit of new car and had to carry on with a defective car, even if it was not a manufacturing defect. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the State Commission cannot be sustained and needs to be modified in the light of the discussion made above.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) to the complainant by the opposite parties.

13.    Based on the above discussion, the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the State Commission is modified to the extent that the compensation payable to the complainant would be only Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) along with 5% interest per annum from the date of order of the State Commission till actual payment instead of 50% of the price of the car along with 9% p.a. interest as awarded by the State Commission.  Order for payment of Rs.30,000/- is also set aside.  Order in respect of the cost of the complaint of Rs.10,000/- is maintained. The order of the State Commission as modified by this order be complied with by the petitioners within a period of 45 days.

14.    Revision Petition No.2366 of 2012 and Revision Petition No.2367 of 2012 stand disposed of in terms of the above order.