Maruti Suzuki Should Pay Rs. 3 Lakh For Failing To Rectify Defects In Car- Delhi State Commission
The Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal as the President and Ms. Pinki as the member upheld the order of the district commission, Shalimar Bagh. The district commission had directed Maruti Suzuki India to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,41,000/- along with an interest of 10% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint...
The Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal as the President and Ms. Pinki as the member upheld the order of the district commission, Shalimar Bagh. The district commission had directed Maruti Suzuki India to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,41,000/- along with an interest of 10% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint for being deficient in rendering service. The district forum further directed the opposite party the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
Facts of the case as per the district commission record are:
The complainant brought a car model ZEN Estilo for a sum of Rs. 3,41,000/-. However, from day one, there was some noise in the gear box and the transmission and the same was communicated to one Sh. Akhlesh GM of Opposite Party 2. However no corrective measures were taken by him. It is also alleged that it has been recorded in a job card that there was noise in the gear box. However, despite trying to have the problem solved the complainant was neither allowed to meet the director nor was the issue resolved. Later the complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties requesting the 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 and also reported excessive operational noise from transmission. When the said issue was still not resolved, the complainant sent several letters to the opposite parties for the replacement of the defective car, however he failed to get nay response.
Observations of the District Forum:
In this matter, the district forum had observed that the question for consideration was whether the complainant was justified in seeking the replacement of the car. They referenced to the decision of the national commission in the case of Hyundai Motors India Ltd V. Affiliated East West Press I. In the mentioned case the national commission had observed that if a brand-new car shows trouble within the first few days, the consumer will be dissatisfied and the manufacturing company should not pursue litigation simply because they have the money power to do so. It was further observed by the national commission that manufacturing companies should be encouraged to accept defects as a delay in disposal of such defect cases caused frustration to the customers. Instead of disputing the undisputed facts, the companies should resolve the matter by replacing the vehicle.
Based on the aforementioned discussion the district forum, Shalimar Bagh directed Maruti Suzuki India to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,41,000/- along with an interest of 10% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint for being deficient in rendering service. The district forum further directed the opposite party the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him and a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
Aggrieved by the order of the district forum, the opposite party no. 1 (Maruti Suzuki India) preferred the present appeal and submitted that the appellant is bound by the warranty enumerated in the owner’s manual and provides replacement only for the defective parts.
The Delhi State Commission observed that main question before them is whether the district commission was right in establishing deficiency of service on the part of appellant. The commission noted that even though the car was serviced more than four times and yet there is enough evidence to show that the car was faulty from its inception. This fact can be vouched for, from the service record. The commission also noted that the authorised service station asked the permission for dismantling the engine of the car, however the same was not given because the car was only one and half year old at the time.
The state commission further observed that the appellant has failed to show before the district forum as well as the state commission any substantive evidence that the said car did not have a manufacturing defect. It was noted that the district forum was right in establishing the deficiency of service on part of the appellant.
Therefore, the bench observed that:
“We do not find any reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”
Case: MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. VS. MR. RAMINDER SINGH & ANR
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 551/2014