IMPORTANT POINT
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1341 of 2013 whereby the Appeal of the Petitioner against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.1257 of 2019 was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) had purchased a Maruti Wagon R (LPG) car on 19.10.2007 for approximately a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs from automobiles dealer. Since according to the Complainant, the car was giving problem just after running 1610 kms, he had to take the car repeatedly to the workshop. As per the Complainant, the car had been taken to the service station for 27 times within two years of the purchase of the car, till the date of filing of the Complaint in 2009. The Complainant had placed on record the job cards. He had alleged that his car had defect of wobbling from the start and the tyres got damaged due to this defect and several parts of the vehicle were replaced during the warranty and free service period but the problem persisted. He had contended that quality checks of the vehicle had not been done and the vehicle was suffering with manufacturing defect.

3. The Petitioner filed its reply before the District Forum. It was contended that the vehicle was attended and parts were replaced during free service. It was submitted that there was proper quality checks before delivery of the car. The Petitioner had also filed in evidence the details of all repairs done from 1610 kms to 43,645 kms from 18.12.2007 till 18.05.2010 in a tabular form in order to prove that they had taken proper action and that the vehicle had been attended and repaired.

4. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and the District Forum held as under:—

“We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the complainant has been faced with problems in car from beginning due to its imperfect fittings or other similar lack of services and quality check up before delivery of car. Though he could not drive full satisfaction as a new buyer and the repairs have gone for beyond normal maintenance in last 5 years. These facts show that complainant’s car was defective in assembly line/lack of supervision or car. Keeping in view the fact that new car is 5 years old, it cannot be replaced. We award a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to complainant for the loss of enjoyment and satisfaction expected from a new car and for imperfect checking of car. We allow litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.”

5. This order was impugned by the Petitioner before the State Commission on several grounds. It had taken up the plea that the Complainant was not a consumer since he had purchased the vehicle for commercial purposes. It was also contended that the Complaint was bad for non-joinder of parties since the dealer from where the vehicle was purchased was not made a party by the Complainant before the District Forum. It was also contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that they had not committed any act amounting to deficiency in service.

6. The State Commission duly considered the contentions of the Petitioner and re-appreciated and re-assessed the evidences on record and held that there was no evidence on record except the bald statement of the Petitioner and rejected the contention of the Appellant that complainant was not a consumer. As regards the contention that the dealer from whom the vehicle was purchased was not made a party, the State Commission had relied on the findings of this Commission in the case of “Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Ors. (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)” and dismissed the said contention of the Petitioner. On merit, regarding deficiency in service, the State Commission has held as under:—

“10. The final ques