Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/329/2017

Anurag Gupta s/o K.C.Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Kenachi Auvacava M.D. Maruti Suzuki Eng. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kamal Chamria

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 329 /2017

 

Anurag Gupta r/o C-1 Hanuman Marg, Hawa Sarak , Jaipur.

Vs.

Sh.Kenichi Ayukawa Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 1, Nelson Mandala Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi & ors.

 

Date of Order 11.9.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Kamal Chamaria counsel for the appellant

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 31.1.2017 whereby

2

 

the complaint has been dismissed.

 

The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 9 days but looking to the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he purchased the vehicle on 17.7.2015 and on the next day he noticed the problem of low pick up and complaint of light blinking. The vehicle was handed over to the authorized service centre as the vehicle was having manufacturing defect it should have been replaced and the respondent himself has accepted the defect. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was purchased on 17.7.2015. Job sheet Ex. A 2 shows that it was handed over to the authorized service centre on 20.7.2015 but the only complaint was as regard to low pick up and blinking of light and the specific reply of the respondent is that electric

3

 

coupler was not fitted properly and after requisite fitting the vehicle was checked after driving for 32 km. and vehicle was found OK. Hence in view of the above facts there seems to be no deficiency on the part of the respondent as he immediately on the next day has removed the minor defect and there is no evidence to the effect that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the claim has rightly been disallowed.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and liable to be rejected.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm