Back
2008(3) CPR 41
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
K.C. Gupta, President; S.P. Kapoor (Retd.) and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
Khalsa Metal Company through
Proprietor and through Authorised
Attorney —Appellant
versus
M/s. Swani Motors Ltd.
and Anr. —Respondents
R.B.T. No. 419 of 2007 in Appeal No. 524 of 2001
Decided on 21.4.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Girish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Sh. G.S. Shafipuri, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Sh. Vikram, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where fuel pump of newly purchased car failed repeatedly and had to be replaced and finally defect was relatable to defective cam shaft, vehicle could be said suffering from manufacturing defects.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Maruti 800 car purchased by complainant was found suffering from inherent manufacturing defects—Opposite Party No. 1 dealer changed the fuel pump five times—Claim for replacement of car or refund of price—District Forum dismissed complaint—Appeal—Material on record showed that car did suffer from defects as alleged—Qualified Engineer who examined the car gave report that vehicle had some inherent defects resultantly the fuel pump broke down after covering 200-300 kms—No evidence was examined to rebut this opinion and District Forum ignored this report —State Commission got vehicle examined from Department of Mechanical Engineering of State Engineering College and the penal found defective cam Shaft was leading to failure of fuel pump— Opposite Party then changed the cam Shaft—Vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect due to which replacement of vital parts was carried out—In the facts and circumstances, complainant awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000 and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000. (Paras 9 to 12)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Devinderjit Dhatt, Member— This appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Commission under the orders of Hon’ble National Commission, has been filed against order dated 6.2.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar in complaint case No. 197-DF-2000. The contextual facts in brief are as under.
2. As per facts stated in the complaint, the appellant/complainant is running an industry under the name and style of Khalsa Metal Company, Industrial Area, Jalandhar and the complaint has been filed by Sh. Sant Bir Singh who holder power of attorney from S. Joginder Singh, Proprietor of appellant company. The complainant has stated that he purchased a Maruti 800 Car on 3.6.1998 being chassis No.1232405 Engine No.1687585 of MB Model from M/s. Swani Motors Limited, Jalandhar (OP No.1), the dealer of manufacturer Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon (OP No. 2). It is submitted that after paying full consideration to OP No.1 loan facility was availed from finance company. It is further the say of the complainant that he purchased the car under the impression that Maruti Udyog Limited manufacture the cars having good standard and quality. It has been averred that car was purchased after assurance given by OP No.1 that the car in question is better than of other cars though the market is flooded with the cars of other manufacturers. It is also stated by the complainant that his wife is bed ridden and the car in question was purchased for meeting any emergency situation with regard to health of his wife. It is alleged by the complainant that intention of OP No.1 was not clear from the very beginning and he was playing fraud with the complainant. It is stated that the service book of the said car was in the name of S. Sukhbir Singh son of S. Lakhbir Singh resident of Preet No. Gali No. 2, Jalandhar City. This fact when brought to the notice of OP No.1 was clarified by saying that the same has been printed due to clerical mistake and he was assured that the best services will be provided to the complainant. As per case set up by the complainant, the car in question suffers from inherent manufacturing defect as the fuel pump fitted in the car was not functioning properly and the same had to change. When it was brought to the notice of OP No.1 it was assured to him that the car in future will given us trouble free service. It is stated that after replacing the fuel pump, the car in question started giving trouble after mileage of 200-300 Kms. The same defect was brought to the notice of OPs again the same part was changed, but the smooth running of the car could not be achieved. It is alleged that OP No.1 has changed the fuel pump five times but still the running of the car is not normal. It is alleged by the complainant that he has suffered losses due to negligence and fraudulent attitude of the respondent/OPs and he has been provided deficient services. It is stated that the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice due to which a right to file the criminal complaint stands reserved by him. The complainant has also submitted that the car has been bought for domestic use as well as business purpose. However same being poor quality vehicle suffering from defects and loss of Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 have accrued to him. It is also submitted that the loan availed by him is payable with heavy interest rate and he is unnecessarily being subjected to financial losses as the car is parked in the complainant’s premises for last five and six months (till the date of filing of complaint) and the complainant is fed up as the inherent defect is persisting, causing him mental tension and harassment. It is also alleged that though the problems have been brought to the notice of OP No.1 many times but there were treated in a casual and matter of fact manner. The complainant has prayed for a direction to the OPs to order the replacement of the car with the trouble free one and if the manufacturer is unable to provide the same the
