Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/122/2019

Shiv Kumar Bhargava s/o Lalit Mohan Bhargav - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman & M.D. The Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rashmi Jain

05 Aug 2019

ORDER

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

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 122 /2019

 

Mr.Shiv Kumar Bhargava & Mrs. Garima Joshi Bhargava both r/o 71/249, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Chairman & Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Head office 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi & ors.

 

Date of Order 5.8.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Ms. Rashmi Jain counsel for the complainant

 

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

 

This complaint is filed on 5.7.2019 with the

2

 

contention that complainant purchased one Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza car. The total sale price was Rs.11,72,781-. On 19.5.2019 afternoon when complainant and his wife travelling in the car near Madhorajpura it was accidented and overturned but airbags did not open even after the hit. Both suffered injuries. Wife of the complainant Garima Joshi suffered fracture of spine C 6 & C 7 and advised bed rest for one month. It is also the contention of the complainant that earlier they purchased a Dezire car from the non-applicants which was also having manufacturing defect and they were not satisfied with the services. Hence, they have purchased Brezza car as the non-applicants have impressed upon them that it has additional safety features. Hence, the complainant has asked for refund of the sale price, Rs. 30 lakhs compensation for trauma, shock and mental agony, Rs. 1 lakh for medical expenses, Rs. 2 lakh for legal and miscellaneous expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for expenses towards taxis, interest etc.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

 

As per record of the case the complainant has purchased

3

 

the vehicle. The cost of the vehicle is Rs. 11,72,781/-. First information report also goes to show that it was accidented. Insurance company has also conducted the survey and e-mails referred by the complainant also suggest that airbags were not opened. It is also true that complainant Garima Joshi suffered fracture, remained hospitalized from 19.5.2019 to 21.5.2019 and she was advised bed rest till 19.6.2019 but in view of the pleadings the claim which has been preferred for Rs.44,92,000/- seems to be inflated. Rs. 30 lakhs were asked for trauma and shock whereas total cost of the vehicle is only Rs. 11,72,781/- . For legal expenses also an inflated claim has been preferred just to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the State Commission which lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and reliance could be placed on IV (2014) CPJ 111 (NC) Sushil Gupta Vs. Master Vintage International where the National Commission has held as under:

 

“Thus, in our considered view, the Consumer Fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with mala fide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/-

4

 

 

approximately as compensation to bring this case with the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is mala fide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction.”

 

 

In view of the above the complaint is not maintainable as it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and it is returned to the complainant to submit it before the District Consumer Forum after appropriate amendments if any.

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm