State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Patel Motors Indore (P) Ltd. vs Kalu Singh on 24 January, 2024
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1815 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 16.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.38/2016 by District Commission, Jhabua) PATEL MOTORS INDORE PVT.LTD. THROUGH PROPRIETOR PRAVEEN PATEL, MARUTI SHOWROOM, MEGH NAGAR NAKA, JHABUA, DISTRICT-JHABUA (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus 1. KALU SINGH. S/O SHRI NATHIYAYAJI PARMAR, R/O KISHANPURI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-JHABUA (M.P.) 2. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE-NORTH II S.C.O, 39-40A SECTOR-8 C, MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH-160 008 HARYANA .... RESPONDENTS. FIRST APPEAL NO. 2040 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 16.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.38/2016 by District Commission, Jhabua) MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED, PLOT NO.1, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 ... APPELLANT. Versus 1. KALU SINGH. S/O SHRI NATHIYAYAJI PARMAR, R/O KISHANPURI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-JHABUA (M.P.) 2. SHRI PRAVEEN PATEL, PROPRIETOR, PATEL MOTORS (INDORE) PVT. LTD, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-JHABUA (M.P.) .... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : ACTING PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri J. K. Prajapati, learned counsel for the complainant. Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Patel Motors. Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Maruti Suzuki. -2- O R D E R
(Passed On 24.01.2024) The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:
Aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.1815/2017 unless otherwise stated.
2. Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhabua (For short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.38/2016. First Appeal No. 1815/2007 has been filed by the opposite party no.1-dealer and First Appeal No. 2040/2017 has been filed by the opposite party no.2-manufacturer for setting aside the impugned order.
3. Brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant are that he had purchased a car 'Maruti Ciaz' luxury fully loaded car on 09.05.2016 from the opposite party no.1, who is the dealer of opposite party no.2. It is submitted by the complainant that 09.07.2016 when he was returning with his family from Surat to Jhabua, driver's side rear tyre got burst and when he replaced the same with extra stepeny tyre, he noticed that wheel is different and size is less than the four regular wheels. It is alleged that the four wheels are make wheel and the stepney wheel is on simple disc due to -3- which the vehicle bend towards one side. On getting the measurement done, it is found that size of the four wheels was 195/22 R 16 whereas the size of the spare wheel (stepney) was of size 185/65 R 15. It is alleged by the complainant that he complained about it to the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 did not resolve the issue. Thereafter legal notice was also sent to the opposite parties. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite parties approached the District Commission seeking relief to provide correct size of make wheel and the tyres of MRF or Apollo company along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs.
4. The opposite party no.1-dealer accepted sale of vehicle to the complainant. It is submitted that as per directions of the manufacturer company, they are selling the vehicles. The alleged stepany tyre was provided by the manufacturer Maruti Company and therefore they are not liable for the same. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1. Thus, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. The opposite party no.2-manufacturer resisted the complaint stating that the complainant is not their consumer as no transaction took place between the complainant and them. The opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles and does not sell the -4- vehicles so manufactured by it directly to any individual customer. The dealer sells the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice. The opposite party no.2 is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of the dealer and its customer. The relationship between the dealer and the manufacturer is based on Principal to Principal basis. The complainant after inspecting the car had purchased the same in his full satisfaction. In the brochure itself the size of spare wheel was shown as 185/65 R-15 and size of other four regular wheels were shown as 195/22 R-16, therefore, neither the opposite party no.2 has committed unfair trade practice nor deficiency in service. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
6. The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to change the wheel and tyre of stepany equivalent to the size of other four regular wheels within one month, otherwise provide all the wheels with tyres including stepany of same size to the complainant. It is also directed that the opposite parties jointly and severally pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Hence the aforesaid appeals by the dealer and the manufacturer.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
-5-8. Learned counsel for the complainant supporting the impugned order argued that since the opposite parties provided wheel and tyre of stepany of different size other than the four regular wheels, due to which he had to suffer mental harassment and therefore, the District Commission has rightly directed the opposite parties to provide all the wheels and tyres including stepany of same size. He argued that the appeals filed by the dealer and the manufacturer deserve to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-dealer argued that the District Commission did not consider this important aspect that they are not the manufacturer and they sold the vehicles as per the policy under which the vehicle manufacturer directs to sell them. The oppostie party no.2 is a manufacturer and stepany of the vehicle is provided with the vehicle by the manufacturer and therefore they are not liable for different size of stepany wheel and tyre. The District Commission also did not consider this fact that the size of the tyres and stepany as was found in the complainant's case are the same as mentioned in the brochure. The District Commission failed to consider that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party no.1-dealer. It is therefore prayed that impugned order passed against it be set-aside.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-manufacturer argued that the impugned order is contrary to the material facts on record -6- and it is vitiated by grave error of law. The complainant purchased the subject vehicle from the opposite party no.1 after checking the specifications and other features of the car and therefore, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for any negligence on part of the complainant himself. He argued that the opposite parties never made any false representation in order to promote the sale. He argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate that although the wheel rim size is different, but the tyre size is also different, so that overall wheel size remains same as that of other four wheels. The tyres and wheels are carefully developed by the qualified team, so that vehicle dynamics remains same.
11. The complainant has filed his affidavit and affidavit of Praveen Panchal, Mechanic along with documents marked as P-1 to P-8. On behalf of opposite party no.1-dealer, an affidavit of Ashok Kumar Singh, Power of Attorney holder has been filed. On behalf of opposite party no.2-manufacturer, an affidavit & counter affidavit of Rishabh Kumar along with documents D-1 to D-4 have been filed.
12. We have perused the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. Also gone through the impugned order. On going through the documents we find that D-2 is the document wherein specifications of the tyres are given that "The spare wheel provided with alloy wheel variant is steel wheel rim". In document D-3 also Temporary -7- Spare Tire is mentioned under the heading of inspection and maintenance. 13. The opposite party no.2 in its reply and affidavit has admitted that spare tyre and wheel assembly in ZXI/ZDI & ZXI+/ZDI is to be used as temporary spare tyre and wheel assembly and the size of the spare wheel is 185/65 R-15 (tyre) and 15x5 1/2J (Steel wheel). The specifications for standard tyre and wheel is 195/55 R 16 and 16x6J. It is further submitted that cautions for temporary spare tyre and wheel assembly usage when equipped as a specification in vehicle are already specified in owner's manual (page 7-20). For easy identification of stepney, stepney is given in steel wheel rim compared to alloy wheel rim for regular wheels. This fact was not controverted by the complainant that there is nothing mentioned in the brochure as well as in owner's manual provided to him. Thus it is clear that the complainant had accepted the delivery of the subject vehicle with full knowledge that the spare wheel is of different size. Had the different size wheel was not accepted by the complainant, he could have refused to take the delivery of the subject vehicle. The complainant after inspecting the car and going through the brochure had purchased the same in his full satisfaction. It is always expected that a prudent person to see all the things, accessories and features about the vehicle before buying it.
-8-14. The opposite party no.2 has filed notification of Ministry of Road Transport And Highways dated 8th August 2012 GSR 625(E) (D-4) (at page
77) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that "Provided that in case of M1 and N1 categories of vehicles, use of temporary use spare wheel shall be permitted and the provision of ready to use spare wheel shall not be mandatory, if such vehicles are fitted with Run Flat Tyres as standard."
15. The complainant has failed to bring on record any expert evidence that spare wheel make such difference so that overall wheel size not remains the same as that of other four wheels. It is also not the case of the complainant that the opposite parties sold the vehicle on false representation that specifications of the spare wheel is different from the specifications as provided in the owner's manual and brochure. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained that the opposite parties were deficient in service in not providing the spare wheel with tyre (stepeny) with different specifications other than mentioned as in brochure and owner's manual.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to supply all the wheels (including stepney) having same specifications. Thus the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is hereby set-aside.
-9-17. In the result, both appeals filed by the dealer and manufacturer are allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. This order be retained in First Appeal No.1815/2017 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No. 2040/2017.