Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Maruti Suzuki India Limited
and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Henry D’souza and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.1614 of 2022 and
1529 of 2022
Decided on 3.6.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58(1)(b), 85] – ‘Manufacturing Defect” – held the complainant failed to substantiate a defect in the vehicle. There is absence of expert evidence or technical reports to corroborate any defect – The reliance on a newspaper article or extract cannot serve as evidentiary support or substantive proof of a defect, and the cessation of a model does not inherently imply a defective product, thereby exonerating OP-1 from liability. Nevertheless, the complainant is entitled to relief solely on the grounds of service deficiency by OP-2 and OP-3. Given that the essence of this case revolves around the issue of oil mixing with the engine, the contention by OP-2 and OP-3 that the complainant himself mixed water with the engine oil lacks logical rationality. This assertion could not be supported by any form of evidence – Thus, in such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the complainant – OP-2 and OP-3 are jointly and severally liable, and are directed to pay the sum of Rs. 4,77,067/- only with interest. [Para 4 to 10].
Result: Petition disposed off.
Order
The two present Revision Petitions (RPs) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the common order dated 31.05.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeals (FAs) No. 176/2019 & 309/2019 in which order dated 02.01.2019, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 235/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission and District Commission.
2. In RP/1529/2022, the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2 & OP-3) were Appellants-1 & 2 in FA/176/2019; Respondents-2 & 3 in FA/309/2019 before the State Commission and Respondents-2 & 3 before the District Commission. In RP/1614/2022, the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Respondent-2 in FA/176/2019; Appellant in FA/309/2019 before the State Commission and Respondent-1 before the District Commission. The Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission in both the Appeals and Complainant before the District Commission.
The RP/1529/2022 has been filed by OP-2 & 3 against complainant and OP-1 and RP/1614/2022 has been filed by OP-1 against Complainant and OP-2 & OP-3 arising out of the common order dated 31.05.2022 of the State Commission in FAs FA/176/2019 and FA/309/2019. As common issues are involved, in the two cases, they are taken up together. However, RP No. 1529/2022 is taken as lead case for presenting facts.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s). Delay in filing RP/1614/2022 is condoned after considering the reasons stated in condonation of delay application (IA/11495/2022). Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.08.2023 (OP-1); 22.08.2023 (Complainant) and 23.08.2023 (OP-2 & OP-3) respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as claimed by the complainant, and as emerged from other case records are that:-
The Complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio VDI with registration number KA-19-MF-7715 on 11.11.2015, from OP-1, which is the manufacturer of the vehicle. This purchase was made through OP-3, who is an authorized dealer of OP-1. Additionally, OP-2 also holds authorization as a dealer of OP-1’s vehicles. Immediately after purchasing the vehicle, the Complainant noticed irregularities in the engine, characterized by uneven and rough sounds. This issue was reported to OP-3, who assured the Complainant that it would be addressed during the first free service. However, despite this assurance, OP-3 failed to identify the cause of the engine issue or repair it. On 24.04.2016, when the Complainant attempted to start the vehicle, the engine failed to start despite multiple attempts. This was reported to OP-3, who sent mechanics to address the issue, but they also failed to start the vehicle. Consequently, the vehicle was towed to the service center of OP-3. Surprisingly, without informing the Complainant of the specific issue with the vehicle, OP-3 issued a job card estimating the cost of replacing spare parts at Rs. 25,000/- and labor charges at Rs. 10,000/-, despite the vehicle being under warranty. Subsequent to the Complainant signing the job card, OP-3 made unauthorized additions to the job sheet, falsely indicating that engine oil was mixed with water for engine overhaul, and changed the date on the job card from 28.04.2016, to 29.04.2016.
As OP-3 failed to carry out the repairs, the Complainant was compelled to purchase another vehicle due to the defects in the original one. Consequently, the Complainant filed a complaint against the OPs, alleging deficiency in service, and sought a refund of the amount paid for the defective vehicle.
5. Vide Order dated 02.01.2019, in the CC no. 235/2016 the District Commission has allowe
Manufacturing defect—Onus to prove manufacturing defect by way of inspection by an Expert would lie upon Complainant’s side—But this cannot be a water tight proposition in all cases.
The court ruled that a manufacturing defect requires substantial evidence; observed minor issues in vehicles do not justify replacement without such evidence.
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
Well reasoned orders – Both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issues raised by Petitioner.
(1) Commercial Use Admission – A categorical admission of commercial use in the pleadings creates a jurisdictional hurdle. The Commission reaffirmed that whether a party is a “Consumer” must be decid....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
