Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.                Complaint was filed by the complainant under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant purchased a car make ERTIGA-VDI-SHVS MARUTI bearing Registration No.PB11 BV 8606 manufactured by Maruti Suzuki Limited from OP vide invoice No.350-258 dated 22.10.2015.  After some time of its purchase the battery of the car started giving leakage problem.  He approached OP who suggested to contact their workshop.  Time and again he visited the workshop of OP and during each visit different remarks were given by their engineers as below:-

Date Remarks 21.12.2015 Battery found discharged, battery charged, check OK 15.01.2016 Battery kept to send Exide House for warranty replacement, if required 19.01.2016 Battery charged by Exide company, battery checked and found OK 08.02.2016 Vehicle checked for battery discharged problem.  Vehicle kept under observation-Unapproved fitments affected the performance and safety.  Suggested to keep the vehicle in original specifications.

7.                Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

9.                It was argued by the appellant/complainant in person that he repeatedly went to OP for rectification of the leakage problem in the battery of the car in question but the same could not be rectified by the OP despite repeated repairs.  In the first instance OP tried to absolve its liability by saying that there is some defect in the battery causing the said defect.  The battery was got checked from Exide company and they found the battery OK.  After that the OP tried to shift the blame on the complainant by saying that the said defect was occurring due to the installation of the non-MGA camera whereas the said camera was purchased by the complainant vide bill dated 24.10.2015 Ex.C-9 from the OP and the same was fitted by the OP in the car itself.  As such, the OP is liable to rectify the defect in the car in question.  He also prayed to enhance the compensation charges and litigation expenses to Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- respectively.

11.              As per the version of the complainant the car was purchased by him on 22.10.2015 and on 24.10.2015 the accessories were also purchased from Ops including camera serial No.74K09-150 for Rs.7990/- and it was got fitted from the OP in the said car. After that the car was brought to the workshop of OP on various dates. Initially they pointed out that there is a problem in the battery and the matter was also referred to Exide company they also check  the battery with  regard to  manufacturing defect in the battery but they stated that battery is OK, therefore, there will be some other defect in the car which the OP is not taking care of and was postponing the matter to the complainant with the excuse that there is a defect in the battery. Once the report with regard to the battery came as OK then they took  the plea that Non-MGA camera is there fitted in the car which is causing some problem in the working of the car. In case the camera was purchased from the shop of OP and it was got fitted by them, there is no reason the complainant will remove that camera and will fit another non-MGA camera in the car.