DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 19^th  day of February, 2024

Present     :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                   :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                                                 Date of Filing: 12/02/2020    

     CC/24/2020

Abdul Razak,

S/o.  Abdul Kareem,

Oravumada, Chemmanthode,

Pothundi, Nemmara,  

Palakkad – 678 508                                                    -           Complainant

(By Adv.  C. Sreekumar)

                                                                                                  Vs

1. The General Manager,

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

Head Office 1,

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasanthkunj, New Delhi – 110 070

2.  The General Manager,

       Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd.

Coimbatore Road, Koottupatha,

Chandranagar Post, Palakkad – 678 007                     -           Opposite parties  

(O.P.1 by M/s.  Adv.  Jayabal Menon & K. Dhananjayan

 O.P.2 by Adv. J. Kamesh)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Pleadings in brief is that the complainant purchased a car manufactured by 1^st O.P. from the 2^nd O.P. Subsequent to purchase, complainant found that there was discoloration on the doors, a knocking noise emanating from the engine and visible door gap. Even though the 2^nd OP attended to the complaints they could not rectify the complaints. Presently the car suffers from the aforesaid complaints as well as poor night visibility due to faulty front glass, gear shifting problem, wiper complaint, sound emanating presumably from shock absorbers and scratches of the right mirror. The car jumps while driving through the road.  Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.
2. OPs filed substantially similar versions stating that the complainant’s car does not suffer from any manufacturing defects or otherwise. They contested the contentions in the complaint stating that the 2^nd OP had attended to all the defects and that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. The vehicle was involved in an accident and hence warranty conditions do not apply to the complainant’s car.
3.  Pleadings and counter pleadings considered; the following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged by him?
2. Whether the OPs had cured all the defects in the vehicles as claimed by them?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service /unfair trade practice on the part of OPs?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

5.         Any other reliefs?

4.           (i)      Evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A9.  Complainant was examined as PW1.   

(ii)   OPs filed proof affidavits.  Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the part of OP1. OP2           did not have any documentary evidence.

Marking of Ext.B1 was objected to on the ground it is only a format and not a valid agreement. Marking of Ext.B2 was objected to on the ground as it is not clear as to which vehicle the said documents applies.  We went through the documents. We find merit in the objections raised by the complainant. Ext.B1 is dealership agreement proforma. Ext.B2 are 3 pages of some document, presumably the User’s Manual of some car. These documents are not enough per se to come to a conclusion regarding the relationship status between the 1^st and 2^nd OPs or as to the conditions applicable to the car of the complainant. Hence Exts. B1 and B2 will not be relied upon to adjudicate the Issues.

            (iii)       Report filed by the Expert Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.  

            Issue No.1

5.         Complainant’s case is that the defect that are suffered by his car, viz., the noises emanating from the engine, the door gap, the poor vision due to front wind shield, gear shifting problem, wiper complaint and scratches of the right mirror arises due to manufacturing defect. From out of the documents produced by the complainant, Ext.A9 contains the vehicle history. This is an incomplete document and has only page 1 out of 3 pages.  Even though the vehicle history shows   a number of demanded repairs nothing is brought out by the complainant by way of evidence to prove that these all are a part of manufacturing defect.

6.         In order to substantiate the pleadings, the complainant took out an Expert Commissioner. His report was marked as Ext.C1. With regard to the defects, the Expert Commissioner has reported as herein below:

“1)       Inspected the vehicle at about 12.45pm in an open land near to Kadumthuruthi-Palana Hospital. There is remarkable difference in the texture of painting on the RHS door and its C pillar body panel.

            2)         Engine is fully functional and is perfectly working.

3)         No abnormal engine noise is noticed.

            4)         There is a little difficulty in shifting the gear from 2^nd to 3^rd.

5)         Door gap is normal, windshield glass wiper is working properly and shock absorbers are working normally.

6)         the owner said that there is only problem in night vision through front wind shield glass nowadays.  

            7)         No other abnormalities noticed in the vehicle.”

7.         No parties to the dispute have taken any steps to object or counter the report filed by the Expert Commissioner. Therefore, report of the Expert Commissioner is reliable and can be acted upon. We hold that items 1 & 4 stated supra are the only defects suffered by the complainant’s car.

            Issue No.2

8.         In view of the findings in issue No.6, we need not delve deep into this issue

             Issue No. 3   

9.         The complaint was filed in 2020. On the date of filing the complainant’s car was suffering from the two problems namely items 1 & 4. The expert commissioner carried out his inspection on 19/10/2022, i.e. nearly 3 years after the car was purchased by the complainant on 31/7/2019. For 3 years the OPs could not rectify the aforesaid two defects. Thus, we can come to a certain conclusion that the O.P.2 has failed to rectify the defects suffered by the car. Therefore, we find that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party 2  in not rectifying the minor defects.

Issue No.4  

10.       The claims raised by the complainant are replacement of the car or return of its price with interest @12% and for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. In the facts and circumstances of the case as evidence by Ext.C1, we are of the opinion that the reliefs claimed by the complainant are exorbitant.

Issue No.5  

11.       Based on the findings in the issues supra, we allow the complaint in part and hold as herein below:

1)         2^nd O.P. is directed to paint the vehicle so that there is no discernable fading.

2)         In the event the 2^nd O.P. cannot carry out the painting works they shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on this count.

3)         2^nd  O.P.  is directed to rectify the tightness while shifting from 2^nd to 3^rd gear.

4)         In the event the 2^nd O.P. cannot rectify this defect, they shall pay an    

             amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on this count.

5)         If the complainant has already carried out the aforesaid works, the 2^nd O.P. shall pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant.

6)         Complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.25,000/-

2^nd Opposite party  shall comply with the aforesaid orders within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to Rs.500/- per month or part thereof from the 2^nd opposite party.  

Pronounced in open court on this the 19^th day of February, 2024.  

                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                                        

                                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                        President

                                                           Sd/-   

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   -   Original certificate of registration  

Ext.A2   –  Original Invoice dated 31/7/2019

Ext.A3   -   Original job dated 26/8/2019       

Ext.A4   -   Copy of  tax invoice   dated 26/8/2019

Ext.A5   –   Original job card dated 17/9/2019  

Ext.A6   –   Copy of  tax invoice   dated  17/09/2019

Ext.A7   –   Original job card dated 15/11/2019  

Ext.A8   –   Copy of  tax invoice   dated 15/11/2019

Ext.A9   -    Original Job card dated 2/1/2020

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1  -  Printout of proforma dealer agreement

Ext.B2  -  Part of a larger document

Ext.B3 –  Copy Job card dated 26/8/2019    

Ext.B4  –  Copy Job card dated 17/9/2019     

 Ext.B5 -   Copy Job card dated 15/11/2019     

Court Exhibit: 

Ext.C1 – Commission report dated 21/10/2022

Third party documents: 

Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 –   Abdul Razak (Complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

 Nil   

Court Witness:

Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.