Back
2009(4) CPR 8 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Mr. B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member and Mr. P.D. Shenoy, Member
Jeewan Motors (P) Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Maruti Udyog Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 51 of 2005 with Revision Petition No. 93 of 2005
Decided on 14.7.2009
For the Petitioner in R.P. No. 51/2005 & Respondent No. 2 in R.P. No. 93/2005:Mr. M.S. Tahilramani, Advocate.
For the Petitioner in RP No. 93/2005 and Respondent No. 2 in R.P. No. 51 of 2005:Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta & Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 in R.P. No. 51/2005 & 93/2005:Mr. Ashish Bargale, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
If the speedometer indicates more than 100 kmph the vehicle can be driven beyond 100 kmph.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b)—Maruti Gypsy (King ST) —Speed beyond 90-95 kms per hour not picked up—Complaints made but all in vain—Complaint for replacement of vehicle—Section 14—District Forum dismissed complaint —Appeal against dismissal—State Commission allowed appeal and directed respondents (opposite parties) to remove defects, or to provide a new car, or to repay Rs. 3,49,631 with interest @ 6% p.a. Costs of Rs. 2,000 also saddled—Held: The vehicle should run at least 126 kmph. It could not run beyond 100 kmph. There is certainly some manufacturing defect—Impugned order calls for no interference—Revision petitions dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The complainant purchased a Maruti Gypsy (King ST) from the petitioner (dealer) on 2.7.1998 and complained that the vehicle could not be driven beyond 90-95 kmph despite the speedometer indicating higher speeds. (!)
- The dealer informed the complainant on 3rd December 1998 that the matter was being taken up with the manufacturer (Maruti Udyog Ltd.), and a letter dated 20th December 1998 from the manufacturer assured action was being taken. (!)
- The manufacturer claimed on 8th February 1999 that a road test conducted on 8th December 1998 showed the vehicle could reach 100 kmph, citing road conditions and safety as reasons not to drive faster. (!)
- The complainant denied the test drive occurred at Bhopal or that the vehicle reached 100 kmph, noting the absence of an affidavit from the test driver or dealer representative. (!)
- The State Commission held the case as res ipsa loquitur and ruled that both the dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally responsible for manufacturing defects. (!)
- The State Commission directed the respondents to remove defects or provide a new car or repay Rs. 3,49,631 with interest @ 6% p.a., along with Rs. 10,000 for harassment and Rs. 2,000 as costs. (!)
- The manufacturer argued that no expert evidence was produced under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and that road conditions in India do not permit driving beyond 80 kmph. (!)
- The manufacturer also claimed the warranty was only for one year and covered part replacement, not vehicle replacement or refund, citing the car had run 66,555 km by 2004. (!)
- In another case (Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Atul Bharadwaj), the National Commission found multiple defects including low pick-up and engine missing problems but awarded only Rs. 30,000 compensation. (!)
- The complainant filed the first complaint on 31.8.1998, reiterating issues in subsequent letters, and the dealer confirmed on 3rd December 1998 that the matter was escalated to the manufacturer. (!)
- The manufacturer's letter dated 8.2.1999 stated the vehicle was driven at 100 kmph during a test on 8th December 1999, but neither the dealer's representatives (Mr. Thomas or Mr. Bargle) filed affidavits to corroborate this. (!)
- The National Commission previously held in Scooters India Ltd. v. Smt. G. Kanakalakshmi that a vehicle must meet its specified performance claims, and in Ashok Ramniklal Tolat v. Gallops Pvt. Ltd., punitive damages were awarded for misrepresentation in brochures. (!)
- The Maruti Gypsy King ST-BS III specifications indicate a maximum speed of 126 km/h, and the speedometer shows up to 140 km/h, making the inability to exceed 100 km/h a manufacturing defect. (!)
- The National Commission dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the State Commission's order that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect and no interference was warranted. (!)
P.D. Shenoy—Mr. Tariq Irshad was the complainant before Forum. He had purchased a Maruti Gypsy (King ST said to be an improved model of 1300cc) from the revision petitioners on 2.7.1998. The main grievance of the complainant was that the vehicle was not picking up the desired speed and could not be driven beyond 90-95 kms per hour (for short ‘kmph’). The vehicle was checked by the dealer, M/s. Jeevan Motors (P) Ltd. and some work was done on 18th August 1998 as well as on 20th August 1998 but there was no improvement. Subsequently, the dealer informed vide their letter dated 3rd December 1998 that they are taking up the matter with the Maruti Udyog Ltd. (manufacturer) and requesting their service representative to visit and check the vehicle. Finally, on 8.2.1999 the complainant was informed that they had already carried out a road drive test of the vehicle on 8th December 1998 and it was found that the vehicle could be driven upto the speed of 100 kmph. It was further explained that because of road condition and safety factor, no effort was made to drive the vehicle beyond 100 kmph.
2. Dissatisfied with the lack of remedial measures taken by the dealer and the manufacturer, the complainant approached the District Forum stating that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prayed for replacement of the same. The dealer disowned its responsibility stating that the responsibility regarding manufacturing defect lay only with the manufacturer. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant approached the State Commission in appeal.
3. The State Commission observed that the very fact that dealer had informed the complainant through its letter dated 3rd December 1998 that the matter is being taken up with the manufacturer, clearly shows that the dealer was satisfied with the genuineness of the complaint of the complainant and since the defect could not be remedied at their level, the matter was taken up with the manufacturer. This is supported by the letter dated 20th December 1998, written by the manufacturer to the complainant assuring him that the action is being taken in the matter. To the assertion of the manufacturer that their engineer along with some officer of the dealer had carried out test drive of the vehicle and it was found that the vehicle could be driven at a speed of 100 kmph the complainant has denied that any such test drive was carried out at Bhopal or that the vehicle could be driven at a speed of 100 kmph.
4. The State Commission further observed that the letter dated 8.2.1999 relating to the test drive is not free from suspicion and what is stated in the letter has not been substantiated in evidence by filing a particular affidavit of a person who had performed the test drive. Even Mr. Bargle, engineer of the dealer who was supposed to be present at the time of test drive has not filed any affidavit. Further normally such test drive should have been conducted in the presence of the complainant, which has not been done. The State Commission held that this was a case of res ipsa loquitur as the facts spoke for themselves. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the dealer that for manufacturing defect only the manufacturer held responsible has been clarified by the State Commission relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that both the manufacturer as well as the dealer are jointly and severally responsible. Accordingly, the State Commission directed that the complainant shall deliver the car at the workshop of the dealer within 30 days of the passing of the order and necessary remedial measures shall be taken by both the dealer and the manufacturer and the car showing the desired performance in the pick up and the speed shall be delivered back to the complainant within next 30 days. In case the defect is not removed, the respondents shall either provide the complainant a new car or repay the entire price amount of Rs. 3,49,631 with interest @ 6% p.a.
