Back
Appeal No.823/2018
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.
(Advocate – Sri.A.Sanjay Kumar)
…..Appellant
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.
(Advocate for R-2 – Sri.Prasanna
Deshpande)
…..Respondents
Appeal No.823/2018
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 28th 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
Appeal No.823/2018
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/complainan
