IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 22.05.2014 Date of hearing: 22.09.2022 Date of Decision: 01.02.2023 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 515/2014 IN THE MATTER OF KRISH AUTOMOTORS PVT. LTD., MAMRAJ MAJESTY MALL, PLOT NO. 2, ROAD NO. 43, GURU HARKRISHAN MARG, PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.

(Through: Mr. Subhash Chawla, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MR. RAMINDER SINGH, R/O 4/19, GROUND FLOOR, EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110026.

(Through: Mr. Manish Raghav, Advocate)

2. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., PLOT NO. 1, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070.

(Through: Mr. Vipin Singhania, Advocate)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Subhash Chawla, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Manish Raghav, Counsel for Respondent No. 1.

Mr.Vipin Singhania & Ms. Mehga Shaji, Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:

“On 08.02.2008, the complainant had purchased a car model ZEN Estilo bearing registration no. DL 8CP 1395 from OP2 for a sum of Rs. 3,41,000/-. OP1 is the manufacturer of the car in question. It is alleged by the complainant that from day one there was some noise in the gear box and transmission and he had brought this fact to the notice of Sh. Akhlesh GM of OP2 but he did not take any corrective measures. It is alleged that in the job card dated 8.3.2008, it has been recorded that there was noise in the gear box. It is also alleged that on 27.4.2008, the father of the complainant again contacted Sh. Akhlesh GM of OP2 and reported of the noise in the gear box. However, after checking the car he was told that it was OK. It is alleged that on 28.4.2008, the father of the complainant again visited OP2 but was not allowed to meet the director. However, an assurance was given on telephone that the problem will be solved after a call is made to the officials of OP1. The complainant then sent a letter dated 9/10 .5.2008 to the OPs requesting for replacement of the defective car. It is alleged that the car was thoroughly inspected by Sh. Anoop Gupta TSM of M/s Maruti Suzuki Pvt. Ltd, 15 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi who had also reported excessive operational noise from transmission as communicated vide letter dated 24.5.2008. The complainant has alleged that the inspection letter also shows that there was some latent manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Since the complainant's grievance was not redressed he sent a registered letter dated grievance 06.06.2008 to the Ops again seeking replacement of the defective car. He received a letter dated 9.6.2008 from the MD of OP1 directing the regional office, Barakhamba road, New Delhi and service division Gurgoan for necessary action. But to no effect. Another letter dated 7.7.2008 from the complainant also failed to get any response.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 26.03.2014, whereby it held as under:

“Some of the facts are not in dispute. The vehicle in question is manufactured by OP1 and was purchased by the complainant from its authorized dealer OP2 on 08/02/2008. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle suffered from a noise in the gear box from the very beginning and he had brought this to the notice of OPs but no corrective steps were taken. This has been denied by the OPS. However, the OPs have admitted that the problem of Noise in Gear and transmission was reported at the time of the first free service on 08/03/2008. There is sufficient on record that the said problem is still persisting and has not been remedied. Thevehicle in question was thoroughly checked by the sh. Anoop Gupta, Territory Service Manager of OP1. He had also found excessive noise in the gear box and transmission which is evident from the letter dated 24/5/2008 addressed to the complainant by OP2 (M/s Kris