Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/349

PANJUMAL THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI UDYOG LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH. SURESH INDORKAR

30 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 17.02.2016 passed in C.C.No.793/2011 by the District Commission, Indore)

 

PANJUMAL THAKUR,

S/O SHRI CHETANDAS THAKUR,

R/O 87/2, TARADEVI ROAD,

SIYAGANJ, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                  …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus                

1. GENERAL MANAGER,

    MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED,

    GURGAON, HARYANA.

 

2. GENERAL MANAGER/DIRECTOR,

    PATEL MOTORS, A. B. ROAD,

    VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                       …         RESPONDENT.                                     

 

 

                           FIRST APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 17.02.2016 passed in C.C.No.793/2011 by the District Commission, Indore)

 

GENERAL MANAGER/DIRECTOR,

PATEL MOTORS, A. B. ROAD,

VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                            …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus                

1. PANJUMAL THAKUR,

    S/O SHRI CHETANDAS THAKUR,

    R/O 87/2, TARADEVI ROAD,

    SIYAGANJ, INDORE (M.P.) 

 

2. GENERAL MANAGER,

    MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED,

    GURGAON, HARYANA                                                                                      …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

                   HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                  :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY          :   MEMBER

                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                        Shri Suresh Indorekar, learned counsel for the complainant. 

                Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Maruti Udyog

                Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Patel Motors.

                                        

 

 

 

                                                  -2-

                                              O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 30.05.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:          

                    Aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.  This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.349/2016 unless otherwise stated.  

2.                Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.793/2011. First Appeal no. 349/2016 has been filed by the complainant whereas First Appeal no.361/2016 has been filed by the opposite party no.2-Patel Motors for setting aside the impugned order.

3.                Facts of the case in short are that the complainant had purchased Maruti Swift Car bearing registration no. MP-09 CC-9222 from the opposite party no.2-Patel Motors. The opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer of the subject car. It is alleged that soon after its purchase, the vehicle started giving problems. The vehicle was having manufacturing defects. Since after its purchase, oil indicator of the car was not working, when the vehicle run 3000 KM oil seeps automatically. The complainant approached the opposite party no.2 for removal of defects on various

-3-

occasions but the problem still persists and they failed to remove the defects.  The vehicle is not in a condition to even start. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

4.                The opposite party no.1-manufacturer resisted the complaint stating that warranty period of two years was given on the subject vehicle. The complainant had filed a complaint after a period of one year and nine months from the expiry of warranty period, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation. During first three free services the complainant never complained about any defect in the subject vehicle. After running 42,197 km first time, the complainant made a complaint on 14.07.2011, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. As per vehicle history, there is no defect in the subject vehicle. The District Commission had called expert report from SGSITS which had confirmed that there was no defect in the subject vehicle. The opposite party no. 1 after standard quality test send the subject vehicle for sale in market. The opposite party no.1 is selling the vehicle as per agreement to the opposite party no.2-dealer on principal to principal basis. The complainant unnecessarily impleaded the opposite party no.1 as party to the case. It is therefore prayed that the compliant be dismissed with costs.  

5.                The opposite party no.2-dealer stated that the warranty starts for a period of 24 months or 40000 km whichever is earlier from the date of

-4-

sale of vehicle. At the time of selling of vehicle there was no defect in the vehicle. On 10.09.2008, 01.11.2008 and 15.11.2008, the complainant brought the vehicle for servicing and he never made any complaint regarding seeping of oil. On 19.05.2009, when the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite party no.2, the expert mechanics were found under body damage and oil chamber damage, which was caused due to hitting or stuck by a solid object. Whenever, the complainant brought the vehicle, servicing was done up to his satisfaction. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                The District Commission holding the opposite parties deficient in service allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of two months. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.   

7.                Heard. Perused the record.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission did not consider this important aspect that the reply of the opposite party no.2 clearly indicates that vehicle was having manufacturing defects even then the District Commission passed the impugned order. Learned District Commission erred in not considering that as and when vehicle was delivered after service, the complainant has

-5-

marked his dissatisfaction on the job card. Expert has clearly stated that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect even the District Commission did not order to change the vehicle or to pay the cost of the vehicle.  He further argued that the District Commission committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle was not having manufacturing defect.

9.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer argued that the subject vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect. The manufacturer sold the vehicle to the dealer on principal to principal basis and if there is deficiency in service on part of the dealer, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the same.  

10.              Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Patel Motors, the dealer argued that the District Commission did not consider this important aspect that the opposite party no.2 is only seller of the vehicle and if there is any manufacturing defect, only manufacturer is liable for the same. The District Commission also did not consider this aspect that the complainant is mentioning that when an engineer of Rukmani Motors inspected the vehicle he found manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. When the complainant brought the vehicle to the opposite party no.2, the expert mechanics were found under body damage and oil chamber damage, which was caused due

 

-6-

to hitting or stuck by a solid object. The District Commission without considering the evidentiary material on record passed the impugned order.

11.              After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find from the order sheet dated 18.03.2013, the District Commission allowed the application filed by the complainant for expert report and the District Commission wrote a letter to SGSITS to inspect the subject vehicle and to give report whether the subject vehicle was having manufacturing defect or not.  Shri G. S. Institute of Technology & Science vide their letter dated 06.07.2013 has sent inspection report stating that the inspection of the vehicle was carried on by officials of Patel Motors in our presence on 24.05.2013 at the workshop of Patel Motors where the vehicle is presently stationed and following were the observations:

• Engine oil was at its minimum level.
• On cranking, Compression pressure inside all the four cylinders of engine was very low 1-2kg/cm2.
• The Engine was not in a position to start.

 

E. Comment on the Source of defect inside the engine.

• Since the vehicle has already run for 40,000 km, it would be difficult to trace any manufacturing defect that might have existed at time of purchase of vehicle.  However, it appears that the initial problem (Annexure 1,2,3) might have occurred due to either manufacturing defect or irregularity in oil change that was made prior to vehicle running at 11952 km.
• Prior to vehicle running at 11952 km, an anomaly is observed in the service history provided by the company (Annex 14) The third free service is shown as 4457 km and the second free service is

                               

                                         -7-

shown as 8139km. The third free service should be done after the second free service.

• Annex A indicates that Oil Filter was changed at 11270km; the reason for oil filter change is not mentioned. For a normal vehicle, this would not be needed as the engine oil and oil filter change must have been done together at Third free service (10,000) km, which is not the case here.

 

12.              From the order sheet dated 30.08.2013 it is clear that after receipt of inspection report, the opposite parties sought time to raise objections, if any. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time on 26.11.2013, 24.01.2014, 05.04.2014, 30.06.2014, 18.09.2014, 30.10.2014, 16.12.2014, 27.01.2015, 07.02.2015, 19.03.2015, 27.04.2015, 03.07.2015, 30.07.2015, 14.09.2015, 28.10.2015, 13.01.2016, 01.02.2016 and on 12.02.2016 the matter was finally heard and order was passed on 17.02.2016.

13.              From the record, we find that on 27.01.2015 objections to the Commissioner’s report dated 06.07.2013 has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.1. In the order sheet dated 27.01.2015, later on, there is mention as such.  But the District Commission has not considered the said objections with regard to Commissioner’s report as also not decided the same and has further proceeded and decided the complaint finally. Though in paragraph 13 & 14 of the impugned order the District Commission has also discussed the report of SGSITS but has not decided the objections with regard to Commissioner’s report, raised by the opposite party no.1.

 

-8-

14.              We are of a considered view that the District Commission firstly, ought to have decided the objections raised by the opposite party no.1 with regard to Commissioner’s report and thereafter had to proceed with the case to decide it finally.  In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate that the case be remanded to the District Commission.

15.              Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. Record of the case be sent to the District Commission at the earliest.

16.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.  All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties be afforded opportunity to contest their respective claims. Needless to mention that observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while passing the order.

17.              It is expected from the District Commission to decide the case as expeditiously as possible from the date of appearance of parties.

18.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeals stand disposed of.  However, there is no order as to costs.

 

 

-9-

19.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 28.06.2023.

20.              This order be retained in First Appeal No.349/2016 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.361/2016.

 

         (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   

                  Presiding Member                     Member