State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Madhu Behl vs Magic Auto & Anr. on 26 May, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 26.05.2017 First Appeal No. 30/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the District Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in complaint case No. 498/2009) In the Matter of: Mrs. Madhu Behl W/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar R/o A-88, Bhajanpura Street-9, Delhi-110053 ...... Appellant Versus M/s Magic Auto At 7/56 D.B.G. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Plot No. 1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 .......Respondents CORAM Justice Veena Birbal, President Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Present appeal is filed against the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 498/2009 whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had purchased a second hand car on 30.04.2009 bearing registration No. DL2FGV-0043 from respondent-1/OP-1 under the Flagship of respondent-2/OP-2 for Rs. 2,56,000/-. It was alleged that the delivery of the car was taken on 04.05.2009 and all records of the vehicle were also made available to the appellant/complainant. At the time of delivery, the respondent/OP had issued Maruti True Value Certification wherein it was mentioned that the said car had previously run 27,620 kilometer. The said car came with a warranty of one year/upto 15,000 km, whichever occured earlier along with three free services. It was alleged that the respondents/OPs claimed that the said vehicle had gone through stringent 120-point checklist and authenticity of documentation was also verified. It was alleged that at the time of second free service from the authorized service station vide job card No. JC-09006380 dt. 06.09.2009, the appellant/complainant noticed that the mileage of the car was recorded therein as 52608 kms and the car was also shown to have undergone some repairs, denting and painting also. Thereafter, the appellant/complainant immediately contacted respondent/OP and requested to take back the car and refund an amount of Rs. 2,56,000/-. The respondents/OPs had declined to take back the car of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant/complainant sent a legal notice dated 01.10.2009 to the respondents/OPs. As the respondents/OPs failed to take any action, the appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum with a prayer to refund Rs. 2,56,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and award of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony besides award of Rs. 40,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Ld. District Forum had issued notice to both the respondents/OPs who filed their separate replies and contested the complaint.
4. Respondent-1/OP-1 i.e. M/s Magic Auto pleaded that the vehicle was purchased from it at Sector-9, Dwarka , New Delhi and as such the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint. It was further alleged that the appellant/complainant purchased the pre-owned vehicle after satisfying herself on all aspects including condition of the vehicle and the respondent-/OP-1 had also issued a Maruti True Value Certification duly signed by an engineer of Maruti Suzuki, certifying that the vehicle had been processed through stringent 120- point checklist. It was alleged that respondent-1/OP-1 had never tempered or doctored the odometer while purchasing the vehicle from the previous owner as was alleged. It was further alleged that the vehicle was purchased by the appellant/complainant after examining the overall condition of the vehicle, model, condition of the engine and other aspects. The reading shown in the odometer was of no consequence so far as purchasing of a pre-owned vehicle was concerned as the reading itself is not the sole criteria for deciding the value of the vehicle. It was further alleged by the respondent-1/OP-1 that after purchase of the vehicle from an owner, the vehicle was sent for total refurbishment including examination of all components. Thereafter, the vehicle was inspected and examined by an expert engineer and certificate was issued by Maruti Suzuki. The document of the vehicle given to appellant/complainant also contain the documentation about mileage reading, which reads as follows:
"The odometer reading indicated in the certificate is merely for reference to enable you to avail free service(s) specified in the Owner's Manual and warranty in accordance with the terms thereof. Odometer reading may not to be true indicator of actual mileage covered by the vehicle. However, the quality of Maruti True Value vehicle is checked as per 120 points vehicle evaluation checklist prior to issuing certificate."
It was alleged that the appellant/complainant cannot wriggle out from the contractual terms and conditions which are part and parcel of the transaction.
5. Respondent-2/OP-2 i.e. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. also filed its written statement wherein it was denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part. It was pleaded that respondent-2/OP-2 was not privy to the contract for sale/purchase of the said vehicle executed between the appellant/complainant and respondent-1/OP-1 i.e. M/s Magic Auto. It was further stated that the certificate was issued by the company after the vehicle had undergone stringent 120 point checklist and the vehicle was sold as per conditions provided under the warranty/service. It was alleged that obligation of respondent-2/OP-2 was limited to providing warranty services which were duly given.
6. The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and had also filed evidence by way of affidavit. The appellant/complainant in her affidavit relied upon documents Ex. CQ-1/A to CW-1/F including the copy of the vehicle record, delivery receipt, copy of job card, copy of vehicle history etc.
7. The respondent-1/OP-1 had also filed its evidence by way of affidavit and had relied upon the documents Ex. RW-1/1 to RW-1/3 i.e. Maruti True Value Certification, copies of job card, copies of certificate dated 01.07.2009, 06.09.2009 and 01.11.2009 and the original Owner's Manual and Service Book.
8. Respondent-2/OP-2 also filed its evidence and relied upon documents i.e. Maruti True Value Certification, delivery receipt of the vehicle and copies of job cards.
9. After hearing both the parties and examining the records filed before the Ld. District Forum, the Ld. District Forum found no deficiency on the part of respondents/OPs and dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant.
10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its complaint, the appellant/complainant had filed the present appeal.
11. Notice was issued to the respondents/OPs. The respondent-1/OP-1 has appeared and filed its reply. None appeared on behalf of respondent-2 i.e. OP-2 and right to file reply of respondent-2 was closed vide order dated 29.01.2015.
12. We have heard, Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Husband of the Appellant and Sh. Kumar Amit, Counsel for the Respondent-1 and perused the material on record.
13. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the purchase of the said car or its price or having any manufacturing defect therein. The only dispute between the parties is regarding the mileage of the vehicle as shown in the Odometer reading at the time of purchase by the appellant/complainant and in the earlier job card. To verify all the documents filed by the parties, we have requisitioned the record of the Ld. District Forum. It is evident from the record of the Ld. District Forum that the appellant/complainant has filed only first page of the booklet card/owner's manual and service booklet.
14. On the other hand respondents/OPs have filed the complete booklet which is exhibited as RW-1/3. The booklet contains various heading including "Odometer reading" wherein it is stated that odometer reading as indicated in certificate is merely for reference to enable the purchaser to avail free service(s) specified in the Owner's Manual and warranty in accordance with the terms thereof. It is clearly stated that Odometer reading may not to be true indicator of actual mileage covered by vehicle. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/complainant that the difference in the mileage as shown in the odometer at the time of the sale of the vehicle and in earlier job card has no force.
15. On the other hand, respondents/OPs have also placed on record photocopy of the booking form of the vehicle as filled by the appellant/complainant dated 10.04.2009 wherein the terms of the booking of the vehicle are mentioned which are signed by the appellant/complainant. The first term and condition of the vehicle reads as under:
"The above vehicle is being sold on as is where is basis unless specified otherwise".
16. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant/complainant had purchased/booked vehicle knowing that she was purchasing the vehicle on "as is where is basis". Further, it is also mentioned in the warranty booklet that mileage shown in the Odometer was not an indicator of actual mileage of the vehicle. Thus, the appellant/complainant entered into a contract with respondents/OPs after being fully aware about the terms and conditions of the purchase of vehicle. Hence, after the purchase of the vehicle she cannot raise any objection about the terms and conditions and mileage shown in the Odometer of the vehicle. The appellant/complainant has failed to raise any defect as regards the running of the vehicle or with the service etc. as promised under the contract which was to be provided by the respondents/Ops.
17. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum has passed a well reasoned order which needs no interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of the Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Veena Birbal)) President (Salma Noor) Member