Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Amar Kumar Saraswat —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India
Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.567 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 30/08/2016 in Appeal No. 153/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 18.3.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: In Person
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Dattatray Vyas, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: NEM
IMPORTANT POINT
Manufacturing defect of car has to be proved by tendering expert opinion by the complainant.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Sections 21, 2(1)(f), 2(1)(a)(i) and 13(1) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58, 2(10) 2(2) and 38 – Automobile – Manufacturing defect – Complaint – Complainant after completely satisfied with the condition of car, took delivery of the same – Complainant has not produced any expert opinion to prove that the car had manufacturing defects – Defects pointed out by complainant about oil chamber leakage, low oil level, engine noise, etc. found repairable – There are not manufacturing defects – District Forum erred in passing order of replacement of car – State Commission rightly ordered Rs. 7,500/- for repairing expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost – Interference with declined. (Paras 9 to 20)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The instant Revision Petition filed against the impugned order dated 30/08/2016 passed by the State Commission, Maharashtra which party allowed the First Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 (OP No.2) wherein the order of District Forum involves modified.
2. This fact of the case is as under:
The Complainant booked a Volkswagen Car at OP 1 (dealer), it was manufactured by OP 2. The Complainant was told by the Agent Mr. Imran that model of December 2011 would be delivered however, in fact the OP1 delivered to him May, 2011 model car on 04/02/2012. The Complainant noticed number of defects in the car like boot of the car was not opening with the remote, the steel grip in the boot was ripped off and the spark like noise was coming from the steering wheel. Being aggrieved the complaint filed by the Complainant before the District Forum, Thane against the OPs for giving alleged one year old defective car.
3. The Opposite Party filed its written version and denied the allegations. It was further submitted that the huge discount of Rs.87,000/- was offered to the Complainant and after satisfaction only the car was delivered to him. The defects were minor and not manufacturing defects.
4. On hearing both the parties, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed OPs as;
“A) Buy back the old car after deciding the price of the said car by expert valuer by taking into consideration the present condition of the car and deducting the price from the price of new car of the same model which should be given to the Complainant at discounted price at 60% of showroom price of new car of the same model.
OR
B) The Opposite Party shall pay to the Complainant the value of the old car at the price arrived at after the examination by the expert valuer.”
5. Being aggrieved the OP 2 the Manufacturer preferred the First Appeal before the State Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai.
6. The State Commission disposed of the appeal with modification of the order of the District Forum with following observations:-
“There was no expert opinion on record produced on behalf of the Complainant about expert examination of the car so as to warrant relief to give price of the car to the Complainant on the basis of expert valuer’s report. What was on record was mere repairs estimated at the sum of Rs.7500/- which we do consider and to end the consumer dispute we order the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- to the Complainant so as to enable him to get the car replaced from the garage as desired by the Complainant. We set aside the impugned order and modify the same by direction that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.7500/- to the Complainant to enable the Complainant to get the car repaired in road worthy condition. Compensation awarded is on higher side. We reduce it to Rs.5000/- as reasonable compensation which shall be payable by the appellant to the complainant apart from the sum of Rs.7500/-. Costs of litigation is also awarded on higher side. We reduce it to Rs.5000/- as reasonable costs of the litigation which shall be payable to the appellant to the complainant apart from the sum of Rs.7500/-. Impugned order is modified accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”
7. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.
8. We have heard the Complainant – Petitioner in Person and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1. Perused the order of both the fora below.
9. We note that the complainant after being completely satisfied with the condition of car, the complainant took the delivery of the car on 04.02.2012. He himself on his own got done the registration and insurance of car. Thus he was aware of the year of manufacturing as 05/2011. The District Forum erred while passing the order of replacement of the car. The manufacturer of the car was not made a necessary party before the District Forum. Therefore, in the absence of the manufacturer, the order of the
