DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  5^th  day of January,  2024

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                   :  Smt. Vidya A., Member              

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 22/03/2021    

     CC/57/2021

V.K. Sudhakaran,

S/o. M.K. Kesava Menon (Late),

7/244-2, Sopanam,

Ashrithara Road,

Koppam, Palakkad – 678 001                                    -           Complainant

(By Adv. M/s M.P.Ravi & M.J. Vince)

                                                                                      Vs

1. The General Manager,

The Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

Head Office 1,

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasanthkunj, New Delhi – 110 070

2. The General Manager,

Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Indus House, P.B.No.923,

Regional Office,

Chakkorathukalam, West Hill,

 Kozhikkode – 673 005

3. The General Manager,

Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Indus Nexa Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Orchid Mall, NH 7, Calicut Byepass,

Sekharipuram, Palakkad – 678 010                      -           Opposite parties  

(OP 1 by Adv. M/s.Anto Thomas  & K.Siyavudheen

OPs 2 & 3 by Adv. J. Kamesh)              

                                                                                    O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant’s grievance, spread over 5 pages, can be distilled to the grievance that the new car purchased by the complainant was suffering from a scratch and a dent on the door of the driver’s side of the car, which was not rectified by OPs even after repeated requests. Complainant seeks for replacement of the car or return of the price together with interest @12% and for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
2. Both O.P.s (O.P.1 being the manufacturer and O.P.s 2 and 3 being the dealers taken together) filed versions repudiating the complaint pleadings.

1. OP 1’s  pleading does not contain much factual repudiation other than rhetoric legal and contractual objections. 
2. OPs 2&3 filed version stating that they had carried out the rectification works and that the complainant had provide a satisfaction note. Further, as a goodwill gesture the OP 2 had provided accessories worth Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. This complaint is only liable to be dismissed. 
3. The following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether the complainant is bad misjoinder of parties and is it maintainable against OP1 as there is no prayer against them in the complaint?
3. Whether the vehicle purchased by the complainant is having any manufacturing defect and is a damaged one as alleged by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not agreeing with the complainant’s replacement / refund request?
5. Whether the OPs are liable for any unfair trade practice or negligence on their part?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed?

7.         Any other reliefs?

4.         (i)     Evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A8. Marking Ext. A1 to A5

were objected to on the ground they were photocopies.  Since this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and the OPs do not have a contention that the said documents are false or forged, these objections are over looked. Complainant was examined as PW1.

(ii)     Both OPs filed proof affidavit. Ext.B4 was marked on the part of OP1. Ext.B1 to B3 was marked on the part of OPs 2 & 3. Even though witness for OPs 2 & 3 was present for cross examination when the matter was called during roll call, he was not be found when the matter was taken up for consideration. Hence, evidence of OPs was closed.  

            Issue No.1

5.         Even though the question of status of complainant was questioned, this contention was dropped by OP 1. Hence this issue needs no discussion. We hold that the complainant is a consumer contemplated under CP Act.

Issue Nos. 2 & 3

6.         On going through the pleadings, we find that the complaint is solely with regard to a scratch on the side of a door of the car. This could have happened any time and would not affect the performance of the car in any manner. Even the complainant has no case that such a scratch has affected the performance of the car. Further the complainant has made no attempts whatsoever by adducing any evidence to prove that such a scratch is attributable to a manufacturing defect on the part of the first OP.

7.         Thus we hold that this complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. There are no manufacturing defects or damages that can be attributed to manufacturing process whatsoever.  

             Issue Nos. 4  

8.         Per pleadings, as already stated, the damage allegedly suffered by the car is a dent. Ext.B1 is a customer satisfaction note issued by the complainant to the OPs. Ext.B1 shows that the scratch mark found on the side of the car was rectified and the car was delivered in good condition. The complainant had taken delivery of the car on 11/2/2021.  Complainant was examined as PW1. In page 3 of the deposition, PW1 has submitted in lines 6 to 9 that he has received Rs. 15,961/- by way of discount.

                        Eventhough the complainant clarifies his stand in re-examination that he executed Ext. B1 since the O.P.1 threatened non-delivery of the car and that satisfaction contains dissatisfaction note also, we are unable to believe this version of the complainant since, if the O.P. refused to deliver the car, he had many legal options before him. Therefore, the statements made in the re-examination are only an after- thought. He has also varied his testimony regarding the reduction in price stating that the said Rs. 15,961/ was totally disconnected with the damage and this was an entirely different amount. But the complainant has failed to prove the nature of said amount.

9.         The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is that the O.P.s 2 and 3 has adequately compensated the complainant for the scratch on the car.

            Issue Nos.  5, 6 &7

10.       Resultantly, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s.

11.       Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

12.       In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

13.       With the above findings, this complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 05^th day of January, 2024.    

                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                       

                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                         President

                                                             Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member        

         Sd/-                                                                      Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   -  Copy of cheque receipt dated 30/12/2020  

Ext.A2  –  Copy of  RTGS receipt dated 4/2/2029

Ext.A3   -  Copy of  Tax invoice dated 5/2/2021

Ext.A4  -  Copy of  temporary certificate of registration

Ext.A5  –  Copy of certificate cum policy schedule

Ext.A6 (a) & (b)  –  5 Photographs & 1 Pen Drive

Ext.A7 – Print out of e mail dated 14/2/2021   

Ext.A8 – Print out of e mail dated 17/2/2021   

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –   Original customer satisfaction note  

Ext.B2 –   Original acknowledgement dated 27/2/2021

Ext.B3 –   Copy of print out of transaction

Ext.B4  –  Original Tax Invoice dated 5/2/2021

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 -  V.K. Sudhakaran (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.