National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Azad Singh Panwar vs M/S. Pasco Automobiles & 4 Ors. on 28 March, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 491 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 03/11/2016 in Appeal No. 916/2016 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. AZAD SINGH PANWAR S/O. SUKHPAL SINGH PANWAR, R/O. H.NO. E-3, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, DCRUST MURTHAL, DISTRICT-SONEPAT-131039 HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. PASCO AUTOMOBILES & 4 ORS. THROUGH ITS MANAGER, PASCO HOUSE NO. 6,INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLD DELHI-GURGAON ROAD, GURGAON-122015 HARYANA 2. M/S. JAGMOHAN MOTORS LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER, DELHI ROAD, DISTRICT-SONEPAT HARYANA 3. M/S. MURTHAL AUTO (P) LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER, PLOT NO. 44, HSIIDC, DISTRICT-SONEPAT HARYANA 4. M/S. MARUTI SALES AND SERVICE THROUGH ITS MANAGER, C-119, NARAINA INDISTRIAL AREA, PHASE I, NEW DELHI-110028 5. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER (SALES), HEAD OFFICE, 1 NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : FOR THE PETITIONER : MR.AZAD SINGH PANWAR, IN PERSON FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 : EX PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023
FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2&3 : EX PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 06.02.2018
FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4&5 : MR. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND
MR. SHAHBAZ AHMAD NAIK, ADVOCATE
Dated : 28 March 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against impugned order dated 03.11.2016 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana ('State Commission') in FA No.916 of 2016. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat ("District Forum") in CC No.47 of 2014 wherein the District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the Respondents No.3 to 5/OPs-3 to 5 to pay Rs. One Lac in lumpsum to the Complainant towards deficient services, causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses.
2. There is one day delay in filing Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.3256/2017, the same is condoned.
3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a car for Rs.5,11,000/- from the Respondent No.1. After sometime, he noticed a few defects and requested the OPs to remove the defects but to no avail. Hence, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
5. In reply before the District Forum, Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the averments in the complaint and contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the car. Respondents No.4 & 5 pleaded that their liability being the manufacturer of the car was limited only to provide warranty benefits as per Clause 3 of the Warranty Policy. On 15.07.2012, the Complainant reported the problem of high consumption of engine oil and turbo noise. The oil filter was replaced. The engine of the car was inspected and found to be OK. There was no manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant was insisting for the replacement of car with the new one.
6. The learned District Forum vide order dated 22.08.2016, partially allowed the Complaint No.47 of 2014 in part and directed the Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 as follows:
"The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents to replace the existing defective car with new one. But this prayer of the complainant is not acceptable because the replacement of any product can only be made when it is proved that the defects developed are not in a repairable condition. In the present case, the complainant no doubt has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.3 to 5, but it is nowhere proved that the defects of the vehicle are not in a repairable condition. In our view, since the complainant could not enjoy his car and he has to pay frequent visits to the respondents i.e. for as many as 18 times w.e.f. 4.10.2011 to 17.10.2013, definitely the complainant is entitled to get some suitable compensation from the respondents no.3 to 5. The complainant has claimed Rs.3 lacs on account of harassment, humiliation and Rs. 11000/- as litigation expenses. In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions are given to the respondents no. 3 to 5 to pay Rs.one lac in lumpsum to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no. 3 to 5 to pay Rs.one lac in lumpsum to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.
With these observations, findings and directions, the complaint stands allowed qua respondents no.3 to 5."
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 03.11.2016 dismissed the First Appeal with the following observations:
"Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the car from respondent No.1 for Rs.5,11,000/- on October 04th, 2011. The car has already run 16787 K.M. upto October 17th, 2013. The question which arises is as to whether the manufacturing company and its dealer was under any compulsion to replace the car itself when certain noises allegedly emanating from the engine of the car. An engine operating on diesel makes a rattling noise which does not occur in petrol driven engine. The car in question is also having an engine operating on diesel. Apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine, there was no other major defect was pointed out by the complainant. No evidence was led by the complainant to prove that defects pointed were not repairable. Even before this Commission no defect could be pointed out except that he visited the workshop number of times. Thus, the order passed by the District Form is perfectly right and requires no interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed."
8. Petitioner/Complainant, appeared in person and reiterated the facts which are stated in the Complaint, the Memo of Appeal and the Revision Petition and sought to refund the full cost of said vehicle i.e. Rs.5.11 Lac along with 18% interest along with Rs.3 Lac for mental agony, harassment, wastage of precious time and unnecessary expenses of the Petitioner by selling the said manufacturing defective vehicle. He also sought to award costs of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation costs and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Fora below. He has relied upon the following judgments:
i. TATA Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Des Raj & Anr., R.P. No.2562 of 2012, decided on 25.09.2013 by the NCDRC;
ii. Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Jatinder Singh Madan & Anr., IV (2013) CPJ 258 (NC);
iii. Ansar Pasha Vs. TATA Motors Ltd. & Ors., IV (2011) CPJ 107 (NC);
iv. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Dr. Hirak I. Desai & Anr., I (2015) CPJ 70 (NC).
9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents No.4 and 5 reiterated the grounds which were already taken in the reply filed before the District Forum and asserted that they are ready to comply to the order passed by the Fora below to the extent of the part of the Respondents No.4 and 5 and they had not challenged the said orders in order to avoid further leg of litigation. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with exemplary costs.
10. The Respondents No.1 to 3 were proceeded ex-parte as they chose not to appear before this Commission.
11. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the Parties.
12. In this case, the primary issue revolves around alleged manufacturing defects in the car purchased by the Complainant from the OPs. The Complainant claimed that the vehicle experienced significant issues shortly after purchase, including smoke and flames from the engine, excessive noise from the turbo, and depletion of engine oil. The Complainant asserted that the repairs were carried out by expert engineers from Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., negating the need for additional expert support. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the noises reported by the complainant were insignificant and did not affect the vehicle's performance. They argued that the repairs were conducted as per the warranty policy's terms and conditions and on a paid basis, to satisfy the complainant's demands. Additionally, it is also uncontested that the car was sold for Rs.1,35,000 after reaching a mileage of 1,11,797 on 07.08.2021, indicating that the vehicle had reached its maximum lifespan of 10 years, despite frequent visits to the service centre.
13. In view of the foregoing, no further intervention into the matter beyond what has already been allowed is considered expedient. Further, it is also revealed from the Order of the learned District Forum dated 22.08.2016 that the Counsel for the Complainant had already given up the claim with respect to Respondent No. 3 (M/s Murthal Auto Pvt Ltd). It is clear that the order of the learned State Commission's dated 03.11.2016 is appropriate, except for any liability attributed to the exempted Respondent No.3. Therefore, the order of the learned District Forum is amended as follows:
ORDER
The Respondents No.4 and 5 (M/s. Maruti Sales and Service and M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd) are jointly and severally directed to pay the Complainant Rs.1 Lakh along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from 22.08.2016 till the date of complete payment, within a period of one month form the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, the simple interest applicable shall be 12% per annum for such extended period.
The amount already paid by Respondent No. 4 and 5 to the Complainant, if any, is liable to be deducted from the total amount due to be paid.
There shall be no order as to costs.
14. All pending Applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER