State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Modern Automobile vs Gurvinder Kaur on 2 March, 2026
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Appeal No. : 163 of 2025
Date of Institution : 28.04.2025
Date of Decision : 02.03.2026
Gurvinder Kaur, resident of H.No.2048B, Block No.21, Housing Board
Flats, Sector-63, Chandigarh - 160047
...Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1] M/s Modern Automobile through Authorised Representative,
authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealership, 4 M.W. Industrial Area,
Phase-I, Chandigarh - 160002
2] Maruti Suzuki India Limited through Regional Maruti Suzuki
official, Regd. Office: Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
...Respondent/Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Aman Kampani, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 (on VC) Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for respondent No.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal No. : 194 of 2025
Date of Institution : 06.06.2025
Date of Decision : 02.03.2026
M/s Modern Automobile through Authorised Representative, authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealership, 4 MW Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh - 160002 ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus 1] Gurvinder Kaur w/o Sh. Kewal Kishan, resident of H.No.2048-B, Block No.21, Housing Board Flats, Sector-63, Chandigarh - 160047 ...Respondent/Complainant 2 2] Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) through Regional Maruti Suzuki Official, Registered Office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070 ...Respondent/Opposite Party No.2 ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant (on VC) Sh. Aman Kampani, Advocate for respondent No.1 Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for respondent No.2 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER Vide this common order we are dispose of above captioned appeals i.e. FA/163/2025 filed by the complainant-Gurvinder Kaur & FA/194/2025 filed by the dealer - M/s Modern Automobile arising out of order dated 29.01.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'District Commission') vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.54 of 2024 filed by the complainant has been partly allowed against both opposite parties No.1 & 2 by granting following relief:-
"11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-
i) to pay a lumpsum amount of ₹15000/- to the complainant towards the cost of installation of defogger and compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her.
ii) to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
12. This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses."
2] Briefly the grievance of the complainant before the District Commission was that she booked a Wagon R ZXI+ 1.2L ISS 5MT (Top 3 Variant) manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited (opposite party No.2) and sold by opposite party No.1, solely on the specific assurance of the sales representative that the vehicle was equipped with a rear defogger, which was a material and decisive feature for her purchase. However, despite paying the booking amount and facing considerable delay and alleged coercion at the time of delivery, the car delivered on 28.09.2023 did not contain the rear defogger. The complainant contended that the removal of this feature was concealed from her despite her repeated emphasis on its necessity and that the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect despite several follow-ups, thereby amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which led to filing of a consumer complaint bearing No.54 of 2024 before the District Commission.
3] While contesting the said consumer complaint, opposite party No.1- Dealer pleaded that the car when it was received in its showroom, was duly inspected by the complainant and she took the delivery after examining each and every document and after physical inspection of the car. It was further pleaded that as the complainant herself mentioned in the complaint, the principals i.e. opposite party No.2 namely Maruti Suzuki India Limited had stopped the putting of rear De-Fogger in the said car model which is otherwise the top variant and for the same, no fault could be placed upon opposite party No.1, the car which was delivered was without a rear De-Fogger. It was further pleaded that qua the grouse regarding delayed delivery, it was intimated to the complainant vide e-mail dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure R-1/2) at the time of booking that the waiting period could be extended as per allocation of the vehicle. However, it was admitted that the price of the car sold was Rs.7,64,280/- and after exchange value of the old car, the amount charged was Rs.6,12,500/-. It was further pleaded that at the time of allocation, the allotment letter was 4 duly sent to the complainant and she had the option in between to cancel the booking but after intimation, she conducted the pre- delivery inspection and the car was delivered to her as per the demand and her satisfaction. Rest of the averments and allegations were denied being wrong.
4] However, when none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 - manufacturer before the District Commission despite following proper procedure, it was proceeded ex-parte by the District Commission on 22.3.2024.
5] The contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective cases before the District Commission.
6] The complainant filed rejoinder before the District Commission reiterating the averments made in her consumer complaint and repudiated those as stated in the written version/reply of opposite party No.1.
7] After hearing the Counsel for the contesting parties and going through the documentary evidence on record, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint against the opposite parties vide the impugned order, as stated above.
8] Before proceeding further on merits of the case in these appeals, it may It may be stated here that alongwith these appeals, respective applications bearing M.A. No.439 of 2025 and M.A. No.523 of 2025 have been filed by the respective appellants in appeals bearing no.163 of 2025 and 194 of 2025 for condonation of delay of 5 days (as per the office 16 days) in Appeal bearing No.163 of 2025 and 66 days (as per the office 53 days) in Appeal bearing no.194 of 2025, in filing the same. For the reasons stated in these applications, we are of the 5 considered view that the respective appellants have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the stipulated period. In this view of the matter, these applications stand allowed and the delay of 5 days (as per the office 16 days) in Appeal bearing No.163 of 2025 and 66 days (as per the office 53 days) in Appeal bearing no.194 of 2025, in filing these appeals is condoned. Accordingly, these applications stand dispose off.
9] Appeal No.163 of 2025 has been filed by the complainant seeking modification of the impugned order and directing the opposite parties to refund the entire purchase amount of ₹6,48,683/- (after deduction of exchange rate of old car) alongwith interest @12% till the date of refund; award compensation for damages quantified at ₹1,00,000/- on account of delay in delivery of the car, defective goods, deficiency and mental harassment caused to the complainant; award litigation cost of ₹80,000/-; grant punitive damages on account of the opposite parties engaging in misleading business practices in the future; hold the opposite parties liable under Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for failing to deliver the vehicle as per the agreed specifications. It is the contention of the complainant that there was failure to award adequate compensation despite clear misrepresentation and inducement on the part of the opposite parties and further the District Commission failed to consider unfair trade practice and violation of Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and breach of right to informed choice on the part of the opposite parties. It has further been contended that failure to provide the promised feature constitutes a deviation from the agreed specifications, thereby attracting the liability of respondent No.2 - manufacturer under Section 84 ibid. It has further been stated that respondent No.1 failed to deliver the vehicle with the specification 6 promised at the time of booking, thereby also rendering itself liable under the provision aforesaid.
10] On the other hand, opposite party No.1 - dealer (M/s Modern Automobiles), in its appeal bearing No.194 of 2025, is seeking setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that District Commission failed to appreciate that the appellant is only a dealer of the Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) and it is for the manufacturer to provide for remove any of the accessories from the cars being manufacture by it and sent to the dealership for selling the same to the customers. It has been further been stated that the complainant got the car booked by paying a total sum of Rs.11,000/- on 08.06.2023 and the expected date of delivery as per the own version of the complainant was August 2023. However, even prior thereto in July 2023 itself, the news was published in newspapers that the providing of defogger on the rear glass of the car had been discontinued by the manufacturer. It has further been contended that this being a design aspect, the appellant has no control over the same. Sill further, such a decision is taken by the manufacturer and the cars are dispatched throughout the country accordingly. It has further been contended that it is not only the complainant but any one, who purchased the car at that time was not provided with the rear glass defogger. It has further been contended that the price of the car is also fixed by the principals and the dealers at their end, only offer discounts if any by cutting their own profit margins in order to maximize the sales and to counter other market forces. It has further been contended that it is a matter of record that even after the discontinuation of the defogger, the manufacturer - oppostie party No.2 did not reduce the price of the car and for this also, no fault could be levelled with opposite party No.1 - dealer. It has further been contended that the defogger could not be installed in the car as the 7 same would tinkle with the internal electric wiring of the car and the same is prohibited by the principals as per the terms and conditions of the voluntary clause. It has further been contended that opposite party No.1 is nowhere at fault and there is no deficiency of service on its part, whatever has been provided to the complainant is as per the manufacturer's details. It has further been contended that as a policy of the company, in case the defogger is stopped being provided, it is for the complainant to purchase the car at all or not. It has further been contended that there is no pressure or coercion on the complainant to purchase the car and in case, he so wanted, he could decline to purchase the car and in that eventuality, a token amount of Rs.10,000/- as deposited by way of advance, it has been refunded to her. It has further been contended that once the complainant purchased the car with her ears and eyes open and without any threat or coercion and with her full satisfaction, the lodging of the instant claim after four months is pure abuse of the process of the law. It has further been contended that opposite party No.1 could have been implicated in case he would have forced the complainant to purchase the car or not refunded the amount of security. However, the complainant never asked for such a refund and purchased the car exactly in condition it had been sent to the dealership by the manufacturer - opposite party No.2. It has further been contended that the defogger, whether it is installed on the rear glass or not, is visible with the naked eyes and it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to raise the grievance that she did not know that defogger is not installed. It has further been contended that if there is any deficiency in service, the same is only and solely attributed to the principal i.e. opposite party No.2 - manufacturer (MSIL). It has further been contended that in that eventuality, rather than fastening the 8 liability jointly and severely, it should be fastened only and solely upon opposite party No.2 - manufacturer.
11] We have heard the Counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the impugned order, pleadings, documentary evidence and written submissions carefully.
12] At the outset, it was not in dispute that the complainant had specifically emphasized the necessity of a rear defogger at the time of booking of the vehicle and that she booked Wagon R ZXI+ 1.2L ISS 5MT (Top Variant) manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited (opposite party No.2) through opposite party No.1 - Dealer. It was equally not in dispute that the vehicle delivered to the complainant did not contain the said feature. The fact that the rear defogger had been discontinued by the manufacturer prior to delivery also stood admitted.
13] However, the crucial question which arises for consideration, in appeal No.194 of 2025 filed by opposite party No.1
- Dealer, is whether the complainant has been able to establish "product liability" against opposite party No.1 - Dealer within the meaning of Section 85 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, so as to justify fastening joint and several liability upon it.
14] Section 85 ibid contemplates liability of a product seller only in specific eventualities, inter alia, where the product seller has exercised substantial control over the designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labeling of a product; has altered or modified the product; has made an express warranty independent of the manufacturer; or where the identity of the manufacturer is not known. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that opposite party No.1 had any role in the design or manufacture of 9 the vehicle or in discontinuation of the rear defogger feature. The vehicle in question was supplied to the dealer in the same condition in which it was ultimately delivered to the complainant. The complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to demonstrate that the dealer independently altered the specifications or suppressed any technical modification after allocation of the vehicle. The discontinuation of the rear defogger was admittedly a manufacturing/design decision taken by opposite party No.2. The dealer had no authority to reinstall or modify the electrical system of the vehicle in contravention of the manufacturer's specifications. In fact, any such alteration could have voided warranty conditions. Thus, in absence of proof of independent fault, modification or express warranty attributable solely to the dealer, the essential ingredients of product liability under Section 85 are not satisfied qua opposite party No.1.
15] In our considered view, the District Commission, while partly allowing the complaint, directed both opposite parties, jointly and severally, to pay a lump sum amount of ₹15,000/- towards installation cost of defogger and compensation, along with litigation costs. In our considered view, fastening joint and several liability upon the dealer (opposite party No.1) without recording a specific finding attracting Section 85 was legally unsustainable. The dealer merely acted as an intermediary seller of a product manufactured and supplied by opposite party No.2 and cannot be held liable for a design modification undertaken by the manufacturer.
16] Accordingly, Appeal No.194 of 2025 filed by opposite party No.1 - Dealer (M/s Modern Automobiles) deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent it fastens liability the it (opposite party No.1-dealer).
1017] Now coming to Appeal No.163 of 2025 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of compensation, refund of the entire purchase price and punitive damages, we find no merit therein. The relief granted by the District Commission was in the nature of reasonable compensation keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the quantum awarded so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the claim for refund of the entire purchase price, interest @12%, ₹1,00,000/- as damages and ₹80,000/- as litigation expenses is wholly disproportionate to the nature of grievance proved on record. Consequently, Appeal No.163 of 2025 filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
18] For the reasons recorded above, appeal No.194 of 2025 filed by opposite party No.1 - Dealer (M/s Modern Automobile) is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the District Commission qua opposite party No.1 - Dealer (M/s Modern Automobile) is set aside.
19] However, appeal No.163 of 2025 filed by the complainant for enhancement/modification in the relief awarded by the District Commission stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
20] Pending application(s), if any, in these appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
21] Copy of this order be placed in the file of appeal bearing No.194 of 2025 titled 'M/s Modern Automobile Vs. Gurvinder Kaur & Anr.'.
22] Record of consumer complaint (in safe custody) alongwith certified copy of this order be sent to the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh forthwith.
1123] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
24] Files be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Pronounced 02.03.2026.
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER *Ad*