Date of filing: 31.05.2018 Date of disposal: 18.03.2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 18.03.2022 PRESENT Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.823/2018 Sri.Dharmendra B, S/o Bangarappa, Aged about 28 years, Forest Contractor, Resident of Siruvala, Sagara Taluk, Shimoga District. …..Appellant (Advocate – Sri.A.Sanjay Kumar)

V/s

1) M/s Shruthi Motors, Authorized dealer, Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Shankar Mutt Road, Shimoga – 01.

Rep. by its Managing Director.

2) The Managing Director, Director, Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurugaon, Hariyana. …..Respondents (Advocate for R-2 – Sri.Prasanna Deshpande)

ORDER

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC No.241/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimoga, aggrieved by the order dated 28^th December 2017.

2. The Commission examined the impugned order and appeal memo.

3. The Appellant herein raised a consumer complaint U/s.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with a prayer to replace brand new Maruthi Suzuki Swift VDI (Diesel BS-IV) in place of old one or in the alternative to reimburse the consideration amount of Rs.6,21,151/- and sought other reliefs. He had booked Maruthi Suzuki Swift VDI (Diesel BS-IV) vehicle on 28.08.2010 with OP-2. He has paid a sum of Rs.6,21,151/-. The vehicle was delivered on 29.10.2010. He raised a consumer complaint on 07.09.2011. The complaint was contested by the OPs. It is found in para-67 that it is normal for the engine to consume some engine oil during normal service operation. The amount of engine oil consumed depends on the viscosity of the oil, the quantity of the oil and the conditions the vehicle is driven under. More oil is consumed during high speed driving and when there is frequent acceleration and deceleration. Under high loads, the vehicle will consume more oil. In para 69 when the vehicle was again taken to OP-1 on 23.06.2014 at a run of 1,43,989 kms as per Ex.R-19 except there was some minor repairs like replacement of speedometer no complaint with regard to excess oil consumption. Further the Forum below in para 74 the quality of evidence required for the proof of alleged manufacturing defect has been well explained in the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P No.1652/2006 decided on 7/5/2010 between Susheela Automobiles Pvt Ltd., V/s. Dr.Veerendra Narayaan and others. In that decision it has been held as under:

At the very outset, it may be stated that to establish the claim for the total replacement by a new vehicle, the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert automobile/mechanical engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. Opinion of an expert body in such cases would be an essential input. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this commission in a number of cases have held that unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts.

4. Further Forum below in para 75 another decision of Hon’ble State Commission Maharashtra in first appeal No.938/2009 decided on 6/3/2010 it has been held as under:

Car was purchased by the complainant/company on

15/10/2004. Complainant car had run for about 16 months covering 17800 Kms. If this is so, surely there was no manufacturing defect. The complainant who allege manufacturing defect has to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the car supplied to him by O.P.No.1 and manufactured by O.P.No.2. There is virtually no evidence of expert adduced by the complainant/Company. It was duty of the respondent/complainant-Company to get the car inspected from expert from the field. So car should have been shown to some Automobile Engineer and his report would have been placed on record to prove that the car was having manu