IMPORTANT POINT
If any defect had occurred on account of accident, it cannot be treated as manufacturing defect for replacement/refund of price of vehicle.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—These revision petitions arise out of common order of the State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

2. Revision petition Nos. 3235-3236 of 2011 – Sophy Thomas & Anr. Vs. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. have been filed by the complainant and R.P. Nos. 3582-3583 of 2011 – Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Sophy Thomas & Ors. have been filed by OP against the order dated 14.07.2011 in Appeal No. 454 of 2010 – Sophy Thomas Vs. Indus Motors and Appeal No. 524 of 2010 – Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Indus. Motors Col Pvt. Ltd. passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ‘the State Commission’) by which, order passed by District Forum directing OP No. 1 & 2 to return repaired vehicle without claiming charges was upheld, but the order directing OP No. 1 & 2 to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- was set aside and OP No. 3 was directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant with 9% p.a. interest from the date of complaint.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant no. 1 is registered owner of Maruti Suzuki SX4 ZXI car having registration no. KL-01-AR-4613 and complainant no.2 is husband of complainant no. 1. Complainant no. 1 purchased aforesaid car from OP No. 1 & 2 manufactured by OP No.3 for a sum of Rs.7,77,668/- on 22.8.2007 with 2 years warranty and extended 3rd year warranty. It was further submitted that from very beginning, vehicle was not performing well and was suffering from mechanical defects such as starting trouble, loss of power, transmission not smooth, very low mileage and rusting. Complainant reported defects to OP but defects were not rectified. It was further submitted that on 7.2.2008, vehicle met with an accident and was taken for repairs to OP No. 1 on 8.2.2008, but so far vehicle has not been returned after repairs, though, 5 months have passed, which has caused huge economic loss to the complainant, as they were spending money on taxi for to and fro journeys. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum with a prayer to replace the vehicle with new model vehicle or to refund price with 18% p.a. interest and also claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. OP No. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No. 1 for regular free service and checkup and all defects noted at that time were removed without any delay. It was further submitted that after accident inspite of repeated requests complainants have not given any approval for repairing the vehicle and only on 15.4.2008, complainant gave consent in writing to repair the vehicle. Any manufacturing defect was denied. It was further submitted that OP No. 1 submitted claim papers and estimate to Insurance Co., but Insurance Co. raised doubt as in the claim form complainant no. 1 declared that accident had occurred due to failure of power brake, though, it was sufficient on action as reported by Motor Vehicle Inspector. It was further submitted that OP No. 1 by letter dated 2.8.2008 informed complainant that vehicle is ready for delivery, but complainant instead of taking delivery levelled further allegations by letter dated 8.8.2008 and he wanted replacement of vehicle or refund of price whereas complainant was liable to take delivery of vehicle after giving balance amount after adjusting claim amount sanctioned by Insurance Co. It was further submitted that defects were caused because of accident committed by complainant no. 2 against whom case has been registered and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant no. 1 has suppressed the fact that she had filed complaint before MRTP Commission before filing this complaint. It was further submitted that vehicle was 100% defect free and had undergone all checks before delivery. It was further submitted that complainant has not pointed out any defects during firs