State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Lovely Autos, Ovely Mall vs Mrs. Renu Vashisht on 17 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.2028 of 2010
Date of institution : 26.11.2010
Date of decision : 17.2.2012
1. M/s Lovely Autos, "Lovely Mall", Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar City.
2. M/s Lovely Autos, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr (Punjab), both through
authorized signatory-cum-Sr. Manager, Mr. M.L. Sehgal.
.......Appellants
Versus
1. Mrs. Renu Vashisht wife of Shri Abhinav Vashisht, resident of H.No.2120,
Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.
2. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon through
its Managing Director.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 19.10.2010 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr).
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Shri Sapan Dhir, Advocate.
For respondent No.2 : Shri P.K. Jain, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
This order will dispose of three appeals, namely, First Appeal No.2028 of 2010 (M/s Lovely Autos and anr. vs. Mrs. Renu Vashisht and another), First Appeal No.2030 of 2010 (M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Mrs. Renu Vashisht and another) and First Appeal No.2174 of 2010 (Renu Vashisht vs. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and others) as all these appeals are directed against the same impugned judgment dated 19.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) (in short "District First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 2 Forum"). Facts are taken from First Appeal No.2028 of 2010 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
Version of respondent No.1:
2. Renu Vashisht respondent No.1 (in short "the respondent") had purchased Swift Dzire LDI (Bharat Stage IV) bearing Engine No.137987 and Chassis No.247641, Colour Pearl Arctic White from the appellants. It was purchased for a sum of Rs.5,75,186/- on 31.3.2010. The entire payment was made. It was manufactured by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. respondent No.2 (appellants in First Appeal No.2030 of 2010). The appellants were the dealers of respondent No.2.
3. It was further pleaded that after the purchase of the car, the respondent got installed some accessories like power windows, central locking etc. on the same day from the appellants. The respondent had also got installed music system in the vehicle from the appellants after it was purchased from outside. The appellants had not handed over the sale invoice and other documents and had asked the respondent to collect the same later on.
4. It was further pleaded that husband of the respondent was working with M/s Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh. On 21.4.2010 the husband of the respondent had visited Ludhiana in this very car in connection with some official work of his employers. When he reached the office on 21.4.2010 at 10.30 A.M., the car was parked outside the office in the parking. At about 2.00 P.M. the husband of the respondent came out of his office and tried to open the vehicle in question with central locking but could not open it. Then he tried to open the car with the keys from its driver door but still he could not succeed. Thereafter the husband of the respondent tried to open the lock of the vehicle from the other side (i.e. the door opposite to the Driver's door). He was shocked to see that the portion of the driver door from inside as well as driver seat, the rear part of the driver seat, even base, wire harness and complete cabin from inside the car was First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 3 burnt. Even plastic parts had melted. By grace of God the husband of the respondent escaped as he was not in the car when it had caught fire.
5. It was further pleaded that immediately upon watching this incident the husband of the respondent called M/s Nippon Dealers at Ludhiana and also the appellants. One Mr. Vikas of respondent No.2, Mr. Ahmed Ali from M/s Nippon dealers and Mr. Singh from the appellants had come and inspected the vehicle.
They found that the vehicle in question had caught fire due to its internal harness wires. In this regard Mr. Singh of the appellants and Mr. Ahmed Ali of M/s Nippon dealers gave their job slips/inspection reports to the husband of the respondent. Some photographs were also taken and video of the burnt part of the vehicle was also prepared.
6. It was further pleaded that Mr. Singh of the appellants asked the husband of the respondent that they would be taking the vehicle along with them in their workshop and they would report to the respondent immediately thereafter. Ultimately the vehicle was taken by the appellants. The vehicle was taken by them not to the Maruti Suzuki office at Ludhiana but it was taken to the office of the appellants at Jalandhar. The vehicle was taken not by picking it by crane but it was towed with another vehicle and was taken on the road.
7. It was further pleaded that as a matter of fact, the vehicle was having power steering and power brakes and could not be run on the road without ignition, yet the appellants had carried out this illegal act to make out a new story that the vehicle had caught fire due to some other problem and not because of manufacturing defect. The vehicle was taken by the appellants on 21.4.2010 and till the evening of 22.4.2010 nothing was heard from the appellants. The husband of the respondent had sent e-mail to the Senior Officer of respondent No.2 on 22.4.2010 at 6.18 P.M. but there was no response. Another e-mail was sent on 23.4.2010 which was followed on 26.4.2010 and 27.4.2010. Still there was no response. The respondent had sent another e-mail on 27.4.2010 at 2.26 P.M. to the manufacturers respondent No.2.
First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 4
8. It was further pleaded that in response, the respondent received e-mail dated 27.4.2010. It was a vague response from one Mr. Kiran Shardul, Regional Service Manager of respondent No.2. It was stated in this e-mail that some problem had occurred due to external reason and not due to any manufacturing defect in the car. He also sought permission from the respondent to repair the vehicle on chargeable basis. Another e-mail was received by the respondent from the appellants on 30.4.2010 reiterating the same allegations.
9. It was further pleaded that husband of the respondent visited the appellants on 1.5.2010. In the presence of the husband of the respondent, the appellants conducted a baseless live experiment test by putting a burning cigarette bud in the car, just with a view to illegally concoct a story that the vehicle in question had caught fire on 21.4.2010 not due to manufacturing internal fault but due to a burning cigarette bud. Even this experiment could not prove if there was no manufacturing defect in the car.
10. It was further pleaded that the respondent and her husband had sent another e-mail on 2.5.2010 to the appellants and to respondent No.2 in which the real facts were stated and deficiency in service on their part was pointed out as also the unfair trade practice played by the appellants and respondent No.2. Humiliation, mental agony etc. suffered by respondent and her husband was also narrated. It was without any result. Ultimately the respondent sent the legal notice dated 3.5.2010. Some more e-mails were sent but there was no response. Hence the complaint for directing the appellants and respondent No.2 to refund Rs.5,75,186/- which was the sale price of the car paid by the respondent to the appellants. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
Version of respondent No.2:
11. Respondent No.2 filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the respondent has misused the process of law as the complaint was totally frivolous and vexatious and deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It was admitted that the car carried warranty but the respondent herself had committed First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 5 breach of the terms and conditions of the warranty. The alleged fire in the vehicle was not the result of manufacturing defect in the car but due to the defect on the part of the husband of the respondent. It was also denied if the respondent was consumer qua respondent No.2.
12. It was further pleaded that false allegations have been made by the respondent in order to make illegal gains. Respondent No.2 was manufacturing Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles for the last more than 25 years. No such complaint was ever received. Moreover the appellants were not the dealers of respondent No.2. They were working on principal to principal basis. It was not denied that the respondent had purchased the car from the appellants and that this car was manufactured by them (respondent No.2).
13. It was denied for want of knowledge if the husband of the respondent had parked the car in the parking at Ludhiana on 21.4.2010 at 10.30 A.M. In fact, the fire had taken place due to short-circuit in the windows of the car when the car was being driven by the husband of the respondent. Even according to the Press report published in Dainik Jagran, the husband of the respondent had visited Ludhiana and at around 2.00 P.M. he had parked the car near Preet Palace Park.
He had noticed at around 2.30 P.M. that the door and the seat of the car had got burnt. The fire was extinguished with the help of local people while the address of parking of the car given in the complaint was different. Therefore the respondent has given different versions at different time at different places which reveal that her story was totally concocted.
14. It was further pleaded that the cause of fire was due to external cause. It was submitted that the burnt cloth was found in the material holder area of the door trim and it appeared that the fire started from top to the bottom side of the trim because the lower portion of the central pillar was partially burnt. There was no sign of short-circuit since the copper strands were perfectly O.K. There were also no signs of over-current surge due to malfunctioning of any part. Couplers for central locking and power windows were found in O.K. condition. All the First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 6 earthing points were properly intact and properly clamped. The power windows operation was found to be normal. Therefore the fire had taken place due to external wiring and not because of any manufacturing defect in the car. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
Version of the appellants:
15. The appellants have also filed the written reply. The purchase of the car by the respondent from the appellants on 31.3.2010 was not denied. It was denied if the sale invoice and other documents of the vehicle were not handed over to the respondent at the time of sale of the car. It was denied if the husband of the respondent had visited the office of the appellants.
16. It was denied for want of knowledge if the husband of the respondent had visited Ludhiana on 21.4.2010 in connection with his official work or if he had reached at 10.30 A.M. The fire was caught not due to some problem in its internal wiring. It was a totally concocted version. The fire was only due to some external wiring because of the negligence/wrongs of the husband of the respondent himself. Even the cigarette experiment was done. It was denied if there was any manufacturing defect in the car. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed. Proceedings before the District Forum:
17. The respondent proved documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26. The husband of the respondent, namely, Abhiney Vashisht also filed his affidavit as Ex.CW-2 while the respondent filed her affidavit Ex.CW-1.
18. On the other hand, Prince Dua of respondent No.2 filed his affidavit as Ex.OPW-1/A while Hari Ram Yadav of respondent No.2 filed his affidavit Ex.OPW-1/B.
19. Learned District Forum considered the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced by them on the file and accepted the complaint partly vide impugned judgment dated 19.10.2010. The appellants and respondent No.2 were directed to replace the burnt and partly burnt parts of the car free of costs and to pay her compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 7
20. Hence the present appeal by the appellants (FA No.2028 of 2010).
21. Respondent No.2 has also filed appeal (FA No.2030 of 2010). Respondent No.1 has also filed appeal (FA No.2174 of 2010) seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and refund of the price of the car.
22. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
23. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the car was purchased from Jalandhar, the fire incident had taken place at Ludhiana while the respondent is residing at Chandigarh. Therefore the District Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
24. This submission has been considered.
25. It has no merits. One of the appellants, namely, appellant No.2 was residing in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr). Therefore under Section 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) had the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
26. Admittedly, the respondent had purchased the Swift Dzire LDI (Bharat Stage IV) car from the appellants for an amount of Rs.5,75,186/- on 31.3.2010. It is also not denied that the car was in Ludhiana on 21.4.2010 and the internal part of the driver's door etc. was burnt. The car was taken to the workshop of the appellants. It was not repaired nor the burnt parts or partly burnt parts of the driver's door side were replaced till the complaint was filed by the respondent and even till it was decided by the District Forum, S.B.S. Nagar on 19.10.2010.
27. When the present appeal was filed by the appellants, this Commission had stayed the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- vide order dated 3.12.2010. However the replacement of the burnt/partly burnt parts of the car was not stayed. As a result the burnt/partly burnt parts of the car were replaced by the appellants with new parts. Thereafter the appellants had written letter dated 13.1.2011 to the respondent to take the delivery of the car which was duly attended and necessary First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 8 action was taken in the matter inasmuch as the burnt and partly burnt parts were replaced with new ones. The respondent failed to take the delivery of the car from the appellants. The appellants had sent another letter dated 31.1.2011 making a similar request to the respondent but to no effect. Thereafter the appellants had sent another letter dated 9.4.2011 but still the car was lying with the appellants as the respondent failed to collect the duly repaired car.
28. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the respondent had not received the letter dated 13.1.2011 or dated 31.1.2011 but she had received the letter dated 9.4.2011 along with a copy of the letter dated 13.1.2011.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on the file a copy of the letter dated 13.1.2011 which was sent by the appellants to the respondent through registered post and a photocopy of the postal receipt was also pasted. Similarly the postal receipt of the letter dated 31.1.2011 was also produced along with a copy of the letter dated 31.1.2011. However the letter dated 9.4.2011 has admittedly been received by the respondent. If the respondent had received the letter dated 9.4.2011, there is no reason to believe if she had not received the letter dated 13.1.2011 or dated 31.1.2011 which were sent to her by registered post on the same address and the postal receipts are a part of these letters. Therefore the fault lay with the respondent for not taking the delivery of the car from the workshop of the appellants since 13.1.2011.
30. The respondent has not proved any manufacturing defect in the car except the fact that the fire had taken place in the driver's door side and the allied parts of the driver's door side were either burnt or were partly burnt on 21.4.2010.
31. Even if we do not believe the version of the appellants or of respondent No.2 that the fire had taken place due to alleged external wiring but the fact remains that the only manufacturing defect in the car was that the driver's door had caught fire from internal side due to defective wiring etc. The burnt/partly burnt parts have already been replaced by the appellants which of course will be First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 9 free of cost and the appellants would be at liberty to charge the price of the replaced parts from the manufacturers, namely, respondent No.2.
32. The respondent had suffered the mental agony and harassment by the fire incident which had taken place on 21.4.2010. The burnt and partly burnt parts of the driver's door side car were replaced with new ones and its intimation was given to the respondent vide letter dated 13.1.2011 by the appellants. Therefore the respondent could not use the car for about 7/8 months. Even in these circumstances the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- appears to be highly excessive particularly when the burnt and the partly burnt parts of the car have already been replaced with new parts by the appellants free of costs. The amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.50,000/-.
33. The respondent would be at liberty to take the delivery of the car from the workshop of the appellants on any working day during the working hours. The appellants would also furnish a certificate to the respondent along with the car that the burnt/partly burnt parts of the car have been replaced with new ones and they are not charging anything from the respondent.
34. Keeping in view the discussion held above, this appeal is partly accepted and the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The amount of compensation shall be payable by the manufacturers i.e. respondent No.2 believing that the fire had taken place in the internal part of driver's door side due to manufacturing defect..
35. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 26.11.2010. They had deposited another amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission on 20.1.2011. Out of these amounts, an amount of Rs.25,000/- be remitted to Renu Vashisht respondent and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest accrued on both these amounts, if any, be refunded to M/s Lovely Autos appellant No.1 by the registry by way of crossed cheques/demand drafts after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 10
36. However the appellants would be at liberty to recover this amount of Rs.25,000/- from the manufacturers, namely, respondent No.2. FIRST APPEAL NO.2030 OF 2010:
37. For the reasons recorded in First Appeal No.2028 of 2010 above, this appeal (FA No.2030 of 2010) is also partly accepted.
38. The appellants (M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 26.11.2010. This amount of Rs.25,000/- be remitted to Renu Vashisht respondent and the amount of interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the appellants (M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) by the registry by way of crossed cheques/demand drafts after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. The appellants in this appeal would be liable to refund the amount to appellant No.1 in FA No.2028 of 2010 (M/s Lovely Autos, Jalandhar). The appellants would also be liable to compensate M/s Lovely Autos, Jalandhar for the new parts which M/s Lovely Autos had inserted in the car by replacing the burnt or partly burnt parts of the car.
FIRST APPEAL NO.2174 OF 2010:
39. For the reasons recorded in First Appeal No.2028 of 2010 above, this appeal (FA No.2174 of 2010) is dismissed.
40. The arguments in these cases were heard on 13.2.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
41. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT February 17 , 2012 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) Bansal MEMBER First Appeal No.2028 of 2010. 11