Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/55

MARUTHI SUZUKI INDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAYALEKSHMI.S - Opp.Party(s)

V SANTHARAM

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO.55/14

 

JUDGMENT DATED:08.06.2015

 

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

 

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

(Formerly known as Maruti Udyog Ltd.)

Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela road,                                    : PETITIONER

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

 

(By Adv: Sri. V. Santharam & M.S. Sankarankutty)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Vijayalekshmi.S,

Nikhil Nivas, House No.XVI/1023,

Mylapur, Umayanalloor.P.O,

Kottiyam, Kollam.

 

2. Managing Director,

Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

Kuttukaran Complex,                                                        : RESPONDENTS

Killippalam, Karamana.P.O, TVPM.

 

3. Manager (Service),

Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

Mundakkal West, Kollam.

 

(By Adv: Sri.Varinjam N. Ramachandran Nair)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the first opposite party in CC.178/08 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, December 09, 2013 directing the first opposite party to repay the value of the defective vehicle supplied to the complainant with interest  and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant purchased Maruthi Grand Vitara vehicle from 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer of first opposite party for Rs.16,58,998/- on December 26, 2007.  The warranty was for the period of two years from the date of purchase.  Immediately after purchase vehicle was found to have several mechanical defects, such as gear tight, defective steering and left side pulling which could be rectified.  Several times the vehicle was taken the 3^rd opposite party for repair, but the defect persisted.  As the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect complainant prayed for replacing of the vehicle or to repay the value of the vehicle with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3.      First opposite party is M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited, New Delhi represented by its Managing Director. He in his version contended thus before the Forum.  The vehicle supplied to the complainant is free from any defects.  When the qualified Engineers of this Company inspected the vehicle it was found free from any defects.  The defects of the vehicle have already been repaired.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Second opposite party is the Managing Director of M/s Popular Vehicles and Services, Trivandrum and 3^rd opposite party is its Branch at Kollam.  They in their versions raised similar contentions.  They further contended that they are only the dealers of the first opposite party company and that they have carried out all the repairs of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complaint.  They further contended that they are only the dealers of the first opposite party company.

5.      PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked on the side of the complainant and DWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D7 and X1 and X2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in supplying a defective vehicle to the complainant and directed the first opposite party to repay the price of the vehicle Rs.16,58,998/- with interest and a cost of Rs.2000/-.  Forum is also awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  The opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.      Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the first respondent/complainant.

7.      It is admitted that complainant purchased a Maruthi Grand Vitara vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-2AB/66 from 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer of first opposite party for Rs.16,58,998/- on November 26, 2007.  Complainant claimed replacement of the vehicle or the price of the vehicle as the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect.  Ext.D4 to D6 job cards issued from the 3^rd opposite party and Exts.X1 and X2 job cards issued from Indus Motors shows that several times the car was got repaired by the 3^rd opposite party for gear tightness and left side pulling.  PW2 the expert who examined the vehicle has reported in Ext.P5 his report dated, October 18, 2008 and also testified that the car suffers from manufacturing defect. He observed gear tightness and left side pulling while driving the vehicle.

8.      The counsel for the appellant argued that PW2 is not an expert in inspecting the vehicle therefore his report cannot be accepted.  There is no substance in the above contention.  He is a Mechanical Engineering

Degree Holder and the Automobile Engineering is the main subject for all Mechanical Engineering students.  Even DW1 the Area Manager of the first opposite party was also a Mechanical Engineering Degree Holder. DW2, Sri.Visak is the Works Manager of Kollam Branch of Indus Motors who issued job card Ext.X1 and cash memo Ext.X2 while working as Manager in the Kollam branch DW3, Sri. Vishnu is Territory Manager of Thiruvananthapuram Branch of first opposite party who issued Ext.D7 the history sheet of the disputed vehicle.  DW4 is the then Manager of Kollam Branch of Customer Care Center of third opposite party.  Evidence of DWs2, 3 and 4 also did not help the opposite parties to prove their case.  Thus it is proved beyond doubt that the vehicle of the complainant suffers from inherent manufacturing defect.  In such circumstances complainant is entitled to replacement of the vehicle or get refund of the price of the vehicle as held by National Commission in Toyotta Kirloskar Motor Ltd. & Another Vs. Jayesh T. Tanna & Another 1(2014) CPJ 162 (NC).  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

9.      Forum has ordered the first opposite party to repay the price of the vehicle Rs.16,58,998/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of

complaint and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

 

 

VL.