Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6227
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, CJ, Ms. Simarjot Kaur, J, Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, J
Sanjay Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. – Respondent
First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 | C.C. No. 470 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Pranav Chadha
For the Respondents: Sh. G.S. Bandal, Sh. Pradeep Sharma
Consumer rights upheld against claims of unfair trade practices due to insufficient evidence of wrongdoings by the vehicle retailer and manufacturer.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Appellant challenged the dismissal of complaint regarding the delivery of a used vehicle - Defendant argued it did not directly sell the vehicle - Allegation of unfair trade practice due to delayed delivery and forged signatures - Compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by District Commission upheld. (Paras 8, 10, 19)
(B) Deficiency in Service - The court found no manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased; the delay in delivery was justified as per the terms agreed; thus, no substantial grounds for complaint. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case:
Complainant booked a vehicle but received one manufactured 10 months prior to delivery along with incorrect tyres. He asserted this constituted unfair trade practice.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the compensation awarded and ruled no substantial evidence for unfair service or fraud was established.
Issues: Whether the vehicle was sold as per the correct representation and if the signing of the satisfaction note was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The satisfaction note's authenticity was acknowledged, and no evidence established deficiency or misrepresentation in the sale, thus reinforcing consumer rights under the law without undue burden on the defendants.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of unfair trade practices due to delivery issues. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. determination of compensation awarded by the district commission. (Para 8 , 10 , 19) |
| 3. authenticity of documents and contracts observed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. findings on the evidence regarding consumer rights. (Para 18) |
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Appeal by challenging the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Appellant/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had booked Maruti Alto LXI Model Car with OP No.3 on 27.12.2015. Total sale price of the Car was Rs.3,23,702/-, however, after adjusting his old car price and other discounts, the balance amount of Rs.2,71,346/- was financed by him from HDFC Bank Ltd. At the time of booking, OPs had assured him that new car would be supplied to him on 01.01.2016, however, it was delivered on 06.01.2016. The car was delivered in the year 2016, however, it was Manufactured in March, 2015, hence, the same was 10 months old. He told the OPs to provide the JK Tyres in the Car, however, they have provided the CEAT Tyres. The OPs had failed to obligate their promises by providing the old vehicle to him.
4. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to refund the price of the car or replace the car with the new one and also paid interest on the same @ 12% p.a. from the date of its deposit till realization.
5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Respondents/Opposite Parties filed their separate written statements. OPs No.1&2 in their written statement had pleaded that they being the manufacturer of the vehicle, did not sell the vehicle directly to individual customer. The Dealer sells the vehicle to their customers under their own Invoice and Sale Certificate. Hence, they were not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of the Dealer. The relationship between the Company and its Dealers was governed by the provisions of Dealership Agreement executed between them and based on principal to principal basis. Denying any unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for the dismissal of the Complaint was made.
6. OP No.3 in its written statement had raised certain objections to the extent that the Complainant had booked the Car on 27.12.2015 by only paying an amount of Rs.10,000/-. After getting full and final payment and doing the paper work, the Complainant selected the Car of his own choice/colour from the Cars standing at the Parking lot of the OP No.3, which was delivered to him on 06.01.2016. It was informed to the Complainant that the vehicle was manufactured in March, 2015, however, the same was brand new. Said vehicle was not sold only as there was no demand by the Customers with regard to the said Colour. After complying with the entire formalities for taking the delivery of new vehicle, the same was delivered to the Complainant and the Complainant had signed the satisfaction note in this regard. It was denied that there was any ‘deficiency in service’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ on its part and dismissal of the Complaint was prayed for.
7. Earlier the Complaint No. 470 of 2016 of the Complainant was dismissed by the District Commission, Mohali vide order dated 06.12.2021, which was challenged by the Complainant by filing F.A. No. 24 of 2022. Said Appeal was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2022 by this Commission and remanded the case to the District Commission for deciding the same afresh by taking into con
