Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President; Maj. Gen.
S.P. Kapoor & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
MODERN AUTOMOBILES—Appellant
versus
V.N. MISHRA & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Case Nos. 433 and 439 of 2004—Decided on 8.4.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Jatin Talwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3:Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
The court's decision highlights the importance of proving a manufacturing defect and the court's discretion in awarding compensation for physical and mental harassment.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Defective Car - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(c), Section 14(1) - The court discussed the extension of warranty, limitation period, and commercial use of the vehicle. The court found that the car did not suffer from a manufacturing defect and declined to order its replacement or refund. However, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 for the physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car, which started giving troubles shortly after the purchase. The complainant filed a complaint seeking replacement of the defective car or replacement of the entire suspension system and claimed expenses and damages for suffering due to unfair trade practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the car did not suffer from a manufacturing defect and declined to order its replacement or refund. However, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 for the physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant.
Issues: Extension of warranty, limitation period, commercial use of the vehicle, manufacturing defect, unfair trade practices
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the car did not suffer from a manufacturing defect and declined to order its replacement or refund. However, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 for the physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the direction to change the entire suspension system of the vehicle at the costs of the appellants. The court affirmed the compensation of Rs. 25,000 and reduced the litigation costs from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—By this order, we propose to decide two appeals bearing Nos. 433 and 439 both of 2004 filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 899 of 2002. Appeal No. 439 of 2004 has been filed by the manufacturer/O.P. No. 2- Maruti Udyog Limited whereas the other Appeal No. 433 of 2004 has been filed by the dealer/O.P. No. 1 - M/s. Modern Automobiles.
2. The respondent/complainant Shri V.N. Mishra resident of House No. 896, Sector 16, Panchkula purchased a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No. HRO-3B-9530 from the dealer/O.P. No. 1 - M/s. Modern Automobiles. The said vehicle bears engine No. 1813373, chassis No. 1310935 and Model MB 800 Std. The car was purchased on 16.2.1999. After 18-20 days of its purchase, the said car started giving troubles and it broke down due the chronic faults repeating again and again. The problem was with the brakes, which are going out of order and jammed in the middle of the road. A report was lodged in this regard at the workshop of the dealer - M/s. Modern Automobiles, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh on 10.3.1999. The first service of the Maruti Car showed Brake Disc Pads cleaned and checked and were found OK by the mechanic of the dealer. The brake again gave problem and jammed. The brake did not function properly and were repaired on 16.3.1999 in the second inspection by the mechanics. The defect of jamming of brake was rectified. Incidentally the same problem of jamming of brake occurred for the third time and the matter was reported at the workshop of the dealer. The discs of the brake were replaced. During third service, a faulty plug was replaced and payment was charged from the complainant vide Bill No. 0069 dated 15.7.1999 for a sum of Rs. 39.62. The rear tyre of the car also worn out. The dealer/O.P. No. 1 sent a letter in this regard to the dealer of the tyre i.e., M/s. Modi Tyres and directed that the tyre be replaced by paying 20-30 per cent wear out. The complainant thus was rightly dissatisfied with the aforesaid vehicle, which according to the complainant was not a new car but an old car, repaired, which was sold to him and he was thus cheated and his life savings were lost. The said car was purchased under the scheme called “Meri Maruti Mera Sapna”.
3. The grievance of the complainant was that it is this dream of his for owning Maruti car, which had been completedly smashed. A legal notice was served through the Counsel on the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Limited, Chandigarh; Area Sales Manager, Maruti Udyog Limited, Chandigarh. The complainant then filed the complaint in the District Forum praying that the defective car be replaced with the new defect-free car or in alternative the entire suspension system be replaced together with axle, differential tube and other defective parts of the car be replaced with new suspension system and necessary parts. A sum of Rs. 11,000/- was claimed as expenses on pursuing the matter and legal costs. Damages were also claimed for suffering due to unfair trade practices of Maruti Udyog Limited as well as M/s. Modern Automobiles.
4. The written statement was filed to the complaint case separately by O.P. No. 1 as well as O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 1 M/s. Modern Automobiles took a preliminary objection wherein it was contended that the complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground that it levelled false and baseless allegations to tarnish the image of O.P. No. 1 - M/s. Modern Automobiles. It was, however, not disputed that Maruti Car 800 CC was purchased from O.P. No. 1 on 16.2.1999 and the said car had been despatched by Maruti Udyog Limited to O.P. No. 1 on 14.2.1999 and the same was received at the premises of O.P. No. 1 on 15.2.1999. On merit, the allegations made in the complaint case were denied and it was pleaded th
