Haryana

StateCommission

A/458/2015

MODERN AUTOMOBILES AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKAS SHARM AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      458 of 2015

Date of Institution:      21.05.2015

Date of Decision :       18.02.2016

 

1.     Modern Automobiles, through its Proprietor, SCO No.411, Sector 8, Panchkula.

 

2.     Modern Automobiles, through its Proprietor, Plot No.318, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula.

                                     Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

1.      Vikas Sharma s/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Resident of House No.142/2, Upper Mohalla, Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Managing Director, Plot No.1, Nalson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110070.

                                 Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sat Pal Dhamija, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                               

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Modern Automobiles and another-opposite parties No.1 & 2, are in appeal against the order dated February 22^nd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby, complaint filed by Vikas Sharma-complainant/respondent No.1, was allowed.  For ready reference operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “(i)     To repair the vehicle of the complainant and hand over it to him in perfectly working condition to his entire satisfaction.

1. To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.”

2.      The complainant purchased Maruti Celerio VXi car from Modern Automobiles-Opposite Parties, on February 26^th, 2014, for Rs.4,19,656/- vide bill Annexure C-1.  The service of the car was regularly got done from the opposite parties, vide Job Cards Annexure R1/2, R1/3, R1/4, R1/5, R1/6, R1/7 and R1/8.  

3.      On September 2^nd, 2014, the car was damaged in an accident. It was got repaired from the opposite parties on September 11^th, 2014, vide Job Card Annexure R1/9 to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company paid the amount. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that there was manufacturing defect in the car.

4.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply wherein they denied the averments made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.      The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is tenable. Indisputably, the car was purchased by the complainant from the appellants on 26^th February, 2014.  The Job Cards produced on the record show that service of the car was regularly done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant during the warranty period. Even after the accident, which took place on September 2^nd, 2014, the car was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant (Exhibit R1/9) and the complainant had claimed compensation from the Insurance Company. Per Vehicle History (Annexure A-1), the car had run 34050 Kms as on 21^st April, 2015. On that date also, the car was checked and service was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has not led any evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the car. 

 7.     Even otherwise, as per Warranty Policy, the vehicle was not covered under warranty. Condition No.3 and 4 of the Warranty Policy, are reproduced as under:-

“3. Maruti’s Warranty Obligation

If any defect(s) should be found in a Maruti vehicle within the term stipulated above, Maruti’s only obligation is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour, when Maruti acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by this warranty.

(4) Limitation:

.

This warranty shall not apply to:

 

1.  Xxx
2. Xxx
3. Xxx
4. any repairs or replacement required as a result of

accidents or collision.

 

8.      In view of the above, the appellants cannot be held liable with respect to the defects, if any, in the car after the accident. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain. Thus, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

 

Announced: 18.02.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL