STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 25.06.2024 Reserved on : 07.07.2025 Date of Decision : 22.07.2025 Sanjay Kumar Mishra aged about 38 years s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar, resident of House No. 201-H, Shivalik Vihar, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, Tehsil & District SAS Nagar (Presently residing at House No. 137, Bajrang Nagar, Ashok Puram Colony, Dafi, Varanasi).

….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurugram Road, Gurugram–122015 through its Chief General Manager (contact@maruti.co.in)

2. M/s Maruti Suzuki (I) Ltd., Regional Office, North-II, SCO No.

39-40, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, U.T. (Chandigarh) – 160008 through its Regional Manager (www.marutisuzuki.com)

3. Tricity Autos, Maruti Suzuki Authorized Dealer, Zirakpur-Patiala Highway, Near Nada Sahib Gurudwara, Zirakpur through its Managing Director .…Respondents/OPs First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in C.C. No. 470 of 2016.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Pranav Chadha, Advocate For respondents No.1&2 : Sh. G.S. Bandal, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate 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 tha