NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/3252/2024 (Against the Order dated 23rd October 2024 in Appeal A/457/2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab)

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED .......Petitioner(s)

Versus ANIL KATYAL & 2 ORS.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.) , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

-

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

-

DATED: 16/05/2025

ORDER

For the Petitioner Mr Prashanto Sen, Sr Advocate with Mr Rishi Raj, Mr Sujeet Kumar, Ms Rashi, Advocates And Mr Anshul Gupta, A R For the Respondents Appearance Not Marked

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

1. The challenge in this revision petition under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) is to the order dated 23.10.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) allowing appeal no. 457 of

2019 challenging the order dated 24.04.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, (“District Forum”) in Complaint no. 375 of 2017 which had dismissed the complaint of the Respondent.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent in person. We have also perused the records carefully.

3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that Respondent had purchased a Baleno Delta petrol car from Respondent no. 2 for a consideration of Rs 6,02,653/- on 31.01.2017. The vehicle was covered with extended warranty up to 30.01.2021 or 80,000 kilometres, whichever was earlier. On 22.09.2017 Respondent no.1 drove the vehicle to Noida on which day there was rainfall. On 23.09.2017 the car did not start and upon calling the mechanic from JKM Motors Pvt. Ltd. it was informed that rain water had entered the engine. Upon inspection in the workshop on 25.09.2017, an estimate of Rs 70,000/- excluding GST was prepared. Respondent 1 alleges that the Petitioner was required to repair or replace the engine free of cost as the vehicle was under warranty. Despite requests the same was not done. Hence, on 04.10.2017 Respondent no. 1 approached the District Forum in CC No. 375 of 2017 seeking, inter alia, refund of the entire sale consideration of Rs 6,02,653/- along with registration, insurance and towing charges and the amount paid for replacement of the engine. On contest, the District Forum dismissed the complaint preferred by Respondent no. 1. An Appeal No. 457 of 2019 was thereafter filed by the Respondent no. 1 on 19.07.2019 challenging the order of the District Forum which came to be dismissed on grounds of limitation. This Commission vide order dated 03.01.2024 remanded the matter to the State Commission on appeal for adjudication on merits. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. Petitioner contends that the State Commission acted without jurisdiction and with material irregularity in erroneously allowing the appeal. This order is impugned before us praying that the same be set aside with any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

4. The contention of the Petitioner is that the impugned order is erroneous in that it has concluded manufacturing defect in the absence of an expert report as mandated under Section 38 of the Act. It was further contended that the Respondent did not lead evidence to discharge the burden of proof placed upon it in this regard. According to the Petitioner the State Commission erred in shifting the onus on the Petitioner herein which was contrary to settled law that the allegation of manufacturing defect be established by the complainant/Respondent No. 1 through an expert opinion under Section 38(1)(c) of the Act which was a material irregularity. It was contended that the defect in the engine was caused due to the Respondent No. 1’s negligence in driving the vehicle in water-logged areas which resulted in a ‘hydrostatic lock’ as per the Job Card