SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
HASMUKH LAKSHMICHAND AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 827 of 2004 with Revision Petition No. 1318 of 2004 from Order dated 22.1.2004 in Appeal No. 11 of 2003 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Decided on : 26-05-2009

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. with Ms. A. Subhashini for M/s. K.P. Sundar Rao and Associates, Advocates, for the Appellant; Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is the requirement for the complainant to prove a manufacturing defect and the significance of non-cooperation in obtaining expert opinions.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Manufacturing Defect - Section 13(1)(c) - The court considered the allegation of a manufacturing defect in a car and the complainant's claim for replacement and compensation. The court discussed the concept of 'Static Electricity' and the requirement for the complainant to prove the defect. The court also highlighted the manufacturer's attempt to obtain an expert opinion and the complainant's non-cooperation. The court concluded that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and allowed the revision petitions.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant purchased a car which allegedly had various defects including electric shock. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to replace the car and pay expenses to the complainant. The State Commission upheld the order, leading to the filing of revision petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant failed to prove a manufacturing defect in the car and highlighted the complainant's non-cooperation in obtaining an expert opinion. The court also noted that the car had been in use for many years without significant issues, indicating no manufacturing defect.

Issues: The main issue was whether there was a manufacturing defect in the car, and if the complainant was entitled to a replacement and compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect and the manufacturer's attempt to obtain an expert opinion. The court also considered the concept of 'Static Electricity' and the complainant's non-cooperation in the inspection process.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, concluding that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and rejecting the complainant's claim for replacement and compensation.

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, President - Present Revision Petitions have been filed against Order dated 22.1.2004 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for short) in Appeal No. 11 of 2003. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the Order dated 6.7.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short).

2. This Order shall dispose of Revision Petition No. 827 of 2004 and Revision Petition No. 1318 of 2004 filed against the same impugned Order. Revision Petition No. 827 of 2004 has been filed by the manufacturer and Revision Petition No. 1318 of 2004 has been filed by the Dealer. The facts and the point of law involved in both the Revision Petitions are the same and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common Order. The facts are being taken from Revision Petition No. 827 of 2004.

3. Briefly, facts leading to the filing of present Revision Petition are as under:

Respondent No. 1/complainant purchased a Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. GJ-5-PP-2921 for a sum of Rs. 3,62,985.95 through the Dealer-respondent No. 2 herein. Respondent No. 1/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the allegation that the vehicle purchased by him started giving trouble within 3 months from the date of its purchase. One of the major defects pointed out by the complainant was that of body earthing, i.e., current passes through the steering and the whole body of the said car. As a result thereof, the person driving the car and other persons sitting in the car, experience electric shock while coming out of the car after a drive. The other defects pointed out by the complainant are 'starting trouble, poor cooling of Air Conditioner system, poor functioning of hand brake, hard steering, steering noise, hard shifting of gears. With the above said allegations, the complainant prayed for replacement of vehicle; compensation of Rs. 50,000 for mental and physical harassment, hardship, etc. and compensation of Rs. 50,000 for financial losses and Rs. 25,489 being the amount spent by the complainant for insurance, octroi, RTO registration of the said car.

4. On receipt of Notice, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2, filed their reply. It was stated in the reply that the vehicle in question was sold under warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of delivery to the first owner or until the vehicle is driven for 20,000 kilometres, whichever event shall occur first. The warranty was made subject to certain terms and conditions, qualifications and limitations as set out in the warranty booklet. That as per warranty, the petitioner's obligation is to repair or replace defective components at its sole discretion during the warranty period when the petitioner acknowledges that such a defect(s) is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of the manufacture. That in the instant case, the vehicle of the complainant was duly attended during the warranty period and the demanded repairs were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of warranty. That the complaint had been filed without any cause of action and deserves to be dismissed.

5. It was further averred that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. Insofar as the alleged electric shock is concerned, it was submitted that the mild shock experienced by the consumers including the complainant, is a phenomenon known as "Static Electricity". The main reason of experiencing a shock while getting out of the vehicle is due to the 'static charge generated due to rubbing of seat fabric and the clothes worn by an individual. While getting down from the vehicle, the 'static charge is carried by the individual and as soon as the person touches any metallic item such as door panel, this 'static ch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top