State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R. Sachdev vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 29 November, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision : 29.11.2006 (1) Appeal No.A-762/2006 (Arising from impugned order dated 25.07.2006 passed by District Forum(New Delhi). KG Marg, New Delhi in complaint Case No. 1360/2005) Mr. R. Sachdev Appellant Nikita Niwas Floor No.1 & 2 in person Panchkuiyan Road,New Delhi Versus ICICI Bank Respondent Connaught Place,New Delhi (2) Appeal No.A-855/06 Maruti Udyog Ltd. Appellant throughMr. Subash Chawla advocate Versus Mr.R.Sachdeva & Ors. Respondents (3) Appeal No.A-852/06 Mr.Ravinder Sachdeva Appellant Versus M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. Respondent CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D.Kapoor (Oral)
1. The aforesaid three appeals arose from order dated 25.07.2006 passed by District Forum whereby the compliant of the appellant was allowed to the limited extent by way of directions to respondent No.2 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for having sold a car which did not fulfil the claim of mileage.
2. For the sake of convenience, we will refer the appellant as whereas M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. as respondent No.2 and M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. as respondent No.3.
3. Relevant facts for our purpose in brief are that the complainant is a senior citizen of above 74 years and is retired from the Ministry of Industries, Govt. of India. After retirement, he decided to purchase a car for his personal use. He was looking for a comfortable and affordable car. On 22.92.2005, he called up various companies including respondent No.3 M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. helpline and gave them details of his choice. On 25.2.2005, representative of Competent Automobile Ltd.(Respondent No.2) visited the house of the complainant and the complainant told him that he wanted a comfortable car with very good interiors, air conditioning, good pick up, fuel-efficiency giving at least 15-16 kms. easily matorable with low costing and easily available spares. The representative of respondent No.2 had brought Baleno VXI for test drive. As for payment, he contacted executive of ICICI Bank on phone who replied to the queries of the complainant. On the next day, the representatives of respondent No.1 & 2 came to the complainant and helped him in getting loan against 60 post dated cheques from his bankers, filled in his form for loan from ICICI Bank( Respondent No.1) and assured him that loan was through. The representative of respondent No.2 took down payment cheque of Rs.303,015/- in the name of respondent No.2 and before it was encashed, Baleno VXI car was delivered to the complainant on 27.02.2005(Sunday)
4. Allegations of the complainant is that the tall claims of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. and its dealer that the car is noise free was absolutely false as from the very next day of purchase, the Baleno car started giving serious complaints for which he approached job dealer and the manufacturer Maruti Udyog Ltd. as car was very noisy to drive, there was enough underbody noise, the suspension was absolute failure as every time the car tyre hit even a small pothole, there was a huge thud sound and jerk to the passengers. The dealers workshop kept the car whole day but the problem persisted. At the instance of representative of respondent No.2, he even changed the tyres and put three layers of high quality imported foot mats by incurring expenses but the noise from the front wheels and the underbody grazing speed breaker and the jerkiness remained. He suffered huge financial losses by way of low average of the car as it was giving anything between 6-7 Kmpl against the claim of 15 to 16 kmpl when the car in fifth gear encounterd a pothole or a bump on the road, it immediately slipped to the neutral gear, posing grave danger to the occupants as well as road users.
Its plastic tyre frame garnish had faded and wipers were hardened. The car lost its sheen and newness because of Teflon coating done at expense of Rs.5500/- at the insistence of representative of respondent No.2 The complainant prayed for the refund of the entire amount with interest and penalty of Rs.3 lacs as compensation.
5. In response to allegations of the complainant that it was giving only 6-7 Kmpl of petrol respondent has pleaded that assurance cannot be given to the customers by the dealers as well as the manufacturer on the average of the vehicle which depends on so many factors and that no such false representation in regard to fuel consumption of the vehicle in question was made. In this connection the complainant has made available on record one pamphlet signed by Adviser(Engg) of Maruti Udyog Ltd. to the customers inter-alia stating that based on the feedback from many valued customers, it is normal to get a fuel consumption of 12-15 Kms/Ltr in normal driving conditions.
6. Regarding the aforesaid multifarious defects respondent No.2 has assured that the car was noise free and that whenever the complainant visited the workshop he never raised any complaint about any problem in the car. However, respondent No.2 itself in two paragraphs thereafter has stated that the complainant had only made complaint about noise in the vehicle and the fault was rectified at the workshop. The complaint regarding problem about the front side noise was raised on 03.03.2005 and this problem was duly checked and rectified. the bumper of the car was also adjusted from right hand side. Again on 02.03.2005, the complainant visited the workshop of respondent No.2 M/s Competent Automobiles Col. Ltd. of respondent No.3 and availed three free services and no complaints with regard to noise in the vehicle were made and thereafter he did not visit any workshop of respondent No.2 or any other dealer and no defects were pointed out by him before filing of the complaint. However, in response to the legal notice issued in May, 2005 to respondent No.2 alleging low mileage, respondent No.2 asked him for examination of the car but he did not bring the same and hence these allegations were also incorrect.
7. The perusal of the impugned order shows that District Forum returned the finding that allegations of the appellant that vehicle was giving only 6-7 Kmpl average were not specifically denied though in their defence, respondent No.2 assured the appellant that average of the vehicle depends on so many factors and produced one pamphlet signed by the Adviser(Engg) of Maruti Udyog Ltd. addressed to the customers stating that on the feed back from various customers, it is normal to get a fuel consumption of 12-16 Kms/ltr in normal driving conditions. However, the counsel for respondent No.2 & 3 has contended that until and unless vehicle completes running of 3000 kms fuel average cannot be judged. Secondly, that respondent No.2 & 3 never represented that the vehicle in question will give 12-15 Kmpl.
8. As regards the noise in driving the fault was rectified at the workshop but this problem persisted again and the complainant had to take vehicle to another dealer M/s Bagga Link Motors Ltd. where the vehicle was again examined and it was found that the engine mounting bolts were very loose, the suspension link arm bolts were also loose and one of them was even missing which defects could have caused serious injuries to the occupants by way of accident or serious damage to the car. The said dealer examined the car on 12.3.2005 as per Annexure A and these problems were at the initial stage of taking delivery of the vehicle and within warranty period. So much so respondent No.3 detailed 13 measures available in vehicle for noise reduction which shows that compliant of the appellant that car is giving noise was not unjustified.
9. It is common knowledge that manufacturer of vehicles in India make tall claims as to the average of their vehicles and in the past we have come across many such matters where the high average was claimed. The common defence of these manufacturers is that average claimed by them is with regard to ideal conditions. We have taken a view that every manufacturer of the vehicle should first gauge the road conditions of the country and places of their target before coming out with claim of mileage . In the instant case the vehicle was luxury vehicle with known brand as Baleno. Any kind of explanation given by the manufacturer with regard to the average which is projected or claimed by the manufacturers is again misleading in nature and false representation.
10. Whenever a consumer purchases new vehicle, he does so only on the projection of the quality and potency of the vehicle which the manufacturer claims. If a consumer suffers so much on day to day basis with new vehicle that he had to take to the garage for rectification of one defect, the mental agony, emotional sufferings, financial losses he suffers are immense.
11. In our view such manufacturers who lure the consumers by projecting high mileage of their vehicles over and above other manufacturers have to be dealt with sternly as it is most unfair trade practice.
12. In the instant case, we feel that District Forum treated the respondents with kid glove and the compensation awarded by the District Forum is much on lower side. The complainant had paid Rs.3,40,000/- to respondent No.2 Competent Automobiles towards cost of the vehicle as the remaining amount was raised by him by taking loan from the bank.
However, the complainant could not pay instalments in time and his vehicle was re-possessed as according to him ICICI Bank started charging higher rate of interest than the agreed rate.
13. In the modern day busy life it is not possible for a person to time and again take the vehicle for repairing for removing one or the other defect every second day and that too in a brand new vehicle. The time and expense and mental agony it involves is unimaginable. In such a situation manufacturer has to compensate the consumer adequately.
It was with a view to inculcate the sense of discipline in the approach of the manufacturers of vehicles and other goods that a very stern standards of quality, purity were prescribed. The word defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied, or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.(Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.)
14. The aforesaid definition itself puts a heavy onus upon the manufacturer or the trader to compensate the consumer if there is any kind of fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, potency, purity or standard of goods as claimed by the trader or the manufacturer in relation to any goods manufactured by him.
15. Manufacturing or inherent defect even if found after the expiry of warranty period does not absolve the manufacture from the consequences. The concept of warranty is that at the most the manufacturer/trader can charge from the consumer as to the cost of its repair and if the goods or an article continue to be defective with manufacturing or other defects the goods have to be held to be defective. The word defect defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not confine only to the warranty period. If an article or the goods is found to be having such a defect which renders it unuseful after warranty period or say after one year it has to be declared as defective goods.
16. What is the use of such goods or article if it looses its utility after a period of one year. No trader or the manufacturer can take the shelter under the garb of warranty period if the article or the goods is later on found to be suffering from several defects.
17. The object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling sub-standard or defective goods or not maintaining the standard of service.
18. Consumer has a right to claim compensation as to the mental agony and harassment if the defects continue to persist immediately after the expiry of warranty as such goods cannot be treated as defect free, fault free goods and therefore, consumer has an independent right irrespective of expiry of warranty to seek compensation from such a dealer or manufacturer as to the loss or injury including the mental agony suffered by him.
19. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal by directing the dealer-respondent No.2 to pay Rs.50,000/- and the manufacturer-respondent No.3 to pay Rs.2 lacs compensation.
20. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt.
21. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Justice J.D.Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mitital) Member slc