State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Ramesh Chaudhary. vs The C.M.D. Maruti Suzuki P. Ltd. & Ors. on 26 December, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 231/2017
Date of Presentation: 21.08.2017
Order Reserved on : 08.07.2019
Date of Order : 26.12.2019
......
Ramesh Chaudhary son of late Sh. Daroga Dass resident of Village
Dadh P.O Dadh Tehsil Palampur District Kangra H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. 1 Nelson Mandela
Road Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070.
......Respondent No.1/Opposite party No.1
2. The General Manager Vehicleades Pathankot Mamoon
Chowk District Pathankot (Pb).
3. The General Manager Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. Malan Tehsil
Nagrota Bagwan District Kangra (H.P).
......Respondents No.2&3/opposite parties No.2&3
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Advocate.
For RespondentNo.1 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar vice Mr. Arjun
Lall Advocate.
For Respondents No.2 & 3 : None.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
F.A. No.231/2017
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 18.07.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No.103/2015 titled Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/Managing Director Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant purchased vehicle in question from opposite party No.3 in the month of November 2010. It is pleaded that warranty of four years was granted. It is pleaded that after running vehicle upto the mileage of 38000 kilometers red light indication of engine oil was given by vehicle in question during warranty period. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant visited authorised dealer of Maruti Vehicleades Mamoon Chowk Pathankot. It is further pleaded that defect was not cured and again vehicle in question indicated red light of engine oil. It is pleaded that vehicle was again brought to vehicleades Pathankot in workshop of opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 changed piston and ring of vehicle in question. It is pleaded that thereafter vehicle in question was brought in the workshop of opposite party No.3 and thereafter 2 Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017
opposite party No.3 retained vehicle in question in its workshop for three days and returned car without removing the defect in question. It is further pleaded that legal notice was also given to opposite parties. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service.
3. Complainant sought relief to the effect that direction to opposite parties for payment of Rs.100000/-(One lac) as monetary loss alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing complaint till date of realization. In addition complainant also sought relief that opposite parties be directed to remove the defect or replace the car. In addition complainant sought relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/-(Fifty thousand) for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant sought additional relief of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) as litigation costs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is barred under law of limitation. It is pleaded that complainant is not legally entitled for any compensation for manufacturing defect. It is further pleaded that vehicle in question has already covered mileage of approximately 70000 3 Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017 KM prior to institution of complaint. It is pleaded that brand new vehicle without any defect was sold to complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 pleaded therein that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that complainant did not approach learned DCF/DCC with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is pleaded that engine oil of car was replaced by opposite parties No.2 &
3. It is denied that opposite parties No.2 & 3 sold defective vehicle to complainant. It is denied that there is manufacturing defect in vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not commit any unfair trade practice. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
6. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission dismissed consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
4
Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017
7. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Complainant filed affidavit Ext.CW-1 in evidence.
There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased vehicle in question in the month of November 2010 from authorised dealer of opposite party No.1 with warranty of four years by obtaining bank loan. There is recital in affidavit that after running vehicle upto 38000 KM red light indication of engine oil was given. There is recital in affidavit that deponent approached workshop of opposite parties No.2 & 3 but opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not remove the defect. There is recital in affidavit that there was excessive consumption of engine oil by vehicle in question. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.
10. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Shri Shobhit Singhal in evidence. There is recital 5 Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017 in affidavit that complainant did not prove manufacturing defect in vehicle in question. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle in question was purchased by complainant in the year 2010 and present consumer complaint was filed after lapse of five years from date of purchase. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties No.2 & 3 have given best service to complainant. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no locus standi to file consumer complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3.
11. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 filed affidavit of Lt. Col. Dewan Singh in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that consumer complaint is not maintainable. There is recital in affidavit that no defective vehicle was sold to complainant. There is recital in affidavit that there was no manufacturing defect in vehicle in question. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite parties.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that manufacturing defect is proved as per report of expert i.e. Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that learned DCF/DCC appointed Local Commissioner i.e. Expert Mechanical Engineer to inspect vehicle in question and to submit report. State Commission has carefully perused 6 Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017 report of expert i.e. Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala. Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala has specifically mentioned in his report that there was some manufacturing defect in engine of vehicle because consumption of engine oil in vehicle was more than 150 ML per thousand KMs. Although objections were raised upon report of Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala on the ground that Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala did not ply vehicle and submitted report after inspection of vehicle in a stationary condition.
13. State Commission is of the opinion that report of Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala has hostile animus against opposite parties at any point of time. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties were under legal obligation to remove some manufacturing defect in vehicle in question as declared by Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled for replacement of vehicle in question with new one is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that two mechanical experts were appointed in the present matter. 7
Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017 One mechanical expert has mentioned that defect is reparable and other mechanical expert has mentioned in his report that there was some mechanical defect in vehicle in question. In the present matter word "some mechanical defect" is material. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of above stated facts it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to order opposite parties to repair some mechanical defect in vehicle in question relating to excessive consumption of engine oil compared to mileage per KMs.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/-(Fifty thousand) for mental agony and harassment is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that two mechanical experts were appointed in the present matter and both have pointed out some mechanical defect in vehicle in question. One mechanical engineer has mentioned that defect is reparable and other has mentioned that there was some defect in vehicle relating to consumption of engine oil. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable compensation.
16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for 8 Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017 litigation costs to the tune of Rs.20000/-(Twenty thousand) is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that defect of excessive consumption of engine oil was not removed by opposite parties despite factum that vehicle was brought in the workshop of opposite parties several times. Complainant has engaged Advocate before learned DCF/DCC and complainant has also incurred other litigation expenses. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is entitled for reasonable litigation costs.
17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 that objections were raised upon Local Commissioner report that Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala has submitted report without plying vehicle in question on the road and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Opposite parties did not send any interrogatories to Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala. No reasons assigned by opposite parties as to why opposite parties did not send any interrogatories to Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala. Hence adverse inference is drawn against opposite parties for not sending interrogatories to Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala.
18. It is also proved on record that learned DCF/DCC has also appointed another Local Commissioner and sought report of Expert -cum- Assistant Engineer Mechanical Sub 9 Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017 Division HPPWD Dharamshala and said mechanical expert has submitted the report that there was manufacturing defect but same was reparable. Thereafter objections were raised upon report of Expert -cum- Assistant Engineer Mechanical Sub Division HPPWD Dharamshala and report was set aside. Thereafter another expert i.e. Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala was appointed.
19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 that there was no manufacturing defect in vehicle in question and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala has specifically mentioned in his report that there was some manufacturing problem in engine of vehicle in question because consumption of engine oil in vehicle in question was more than 150 ML per thousand KMs. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to remove the defect in vehicle in question on usual charges because vehicle has already travelled 80135 KMS when the vehicle was inspected by Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala. Opposite parties did not file any counter mechanical expert report. Report submitted by Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala remained unrebutted on record. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. 10
Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017 Point No.2: Final Order
20. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is party allowed and order of learned DCF/DCC is set aside. It is ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally remove defect of consumption of excessive engine oil per thousand KMs. Opposite parties shall file affidavit of mechanical expert jointly and severally before learned DCF/DCC that defect of excessive consumption of oil removed by opposite parties. Opposite parties shall remove defect on usual charges as approved by manufacturing company because consumer complaint filed on 15.09.2015 after expiry of warranty period.
21. It is further ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20000/-(Twenty thousand). It is further ordered that opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand). Opposite parties shall comply order of State Commission within thirty days after receipt of certified copy of order. Report of Regional Manager HRTC Dharamshala appointed as Local Commissioner and report submitted by Expert -cum- Assistant Engineer Mechanical Sub Division HP.PWD Dharamshala shall form part and parcel of order. 11
Ramesh Chaudhary Versus The Chief/M.D Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. F.A. No.231/2017
22. File of learned DCF/DCC alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member 26.12.2019 K.D 12