2020(5) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 52
Delhi High Court
JUSTICE Mr. PREM NARAIN
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors.
Revision Petition No.2213 of 2019.
21st July 2020
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. VIPIN SINGHANIA with Ms. AMRITA
Act Name: Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Consumer Protection Act, 1986
JUDGMENT :- This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Limited challenging the order dated 17th July 2019 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur (in short the State Commission) in first appeal No. 556 of 2019.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the manufacturer of the vehicle Maruti Swift Dzire which was purchased by the respondent No.1/complainant from the respondent dealer for a consideration of Rs.6,30,236/- on 19th November 2009. The vehicle started giving trouble and was taken to the dealer for repairs many times. Particularly there was defect in the tires which were wearing off rapidly. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from the dealer after paying various amounts which went up to Rs.80,000/- and most of it was within the warranty period as well. The complainant then preferred a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service against the selling dealer, the servicing dealer and the manufacturer of the vehicle. The complainant alleged the manufacturing defect in the car and requested for the change of the vehicle or for refund of the price of the vehicle or for proper repair of the vehicle. The selling dealer and the servicing dealer did not appear before the District Forum, however, the petitioner as OP No.3 filed a reply before the District Forum and contested the case. The complaint was resisted on the ground that the complainant has not availed the services required as per the schedule and therefore he cannot claim any defect in the car because the same would have been rectified during the services. It was also stated that the complaint has been filed after the warranty period and therefore the complaint was time-barred for any manufacturing defect. However, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party No.1, 3 and 4 to pay Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation to the complainant within a period of 1 month and in case of failure, 9% p.a interest will be payable on this amount. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission but the State Commission dismissed the appeal wide its order dated 17th July 2019.3. Hence the present revision petition.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel stated that all the defects which were repaired by the dealer cannot be called the manufacturing defect as they developed due to running of the vehicle inappropriately and due to improper maintenance. The complainant company did not get all the services done as per the schedule and therefore, he cannot get any advantage under the warranty clause. It was further argued by the learned counsel that the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle as the vehicle had run 78,631 kilometers over 30 months which is indicative of the commercial use of the vehicle. It was also argued that the tyres and tubes are outside the warranty clause. Thus, the complainant does not deserve any compensation as the defects cannot be called manufacturing defects and moreover they wear his own creation by not properly maintaining the vehicle and avoiding the scheduled services.5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. First of all, it is seen that there is concurrent finding on facts by both the fora below that the vehicle was suffering from various defects for which the vehicle was taken to the workshop for about 20 times. The District Forum has observed that the complainant has produced bill dated 10th April 2010, 11th June 2010, 12th March 2011, 21st March 2011, 22nd March 2011, 19th May 2011, 16th August 2011, 19th August 2011, 29th August 2011, 22nd October 2011, 23rd October 2011, 20th October 2011, 2nd February 2012, 3rd February 2012, 17th February 2012, 3rd June 2012, and 10th June 2012. From these bills, the District Forum has observed that the vehicle was continuously taken to the workshop of OP1 for checking and repairing. The District Forum has observed that from this, the statement of the complainant gets support that in the disputed vehicle there has been continuous defects after its purchase like peculiar sound, wearing out of tire excessively, damage of break again and again, going out alignment again and again and these are also mentioned on the job cards. The District Forum has also observed that though it is necessary to have expert report for manufacturing defect, however, in this case, besides the bills of repair of various dates, it is clear from the job sheets dated 22nd October 2011 and 8th June 2012 that due to manufacturing defects in the vehicle there has been defects again and again and therefore complainant has to face hardships for showing the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite parties and even after this, defects in the vehicle could not be fully rectified. Similar observations have been made by the State Commission. The scope under the revision petition is quite limited and the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission at the stage of revision petition as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286 : [2016 ALL SCR 1714],” wherein the following has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- 17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”6. Moreover, if purchaser of a new vehicle cannot enjoy the feeling of a new vehicle and he has to rush to the workshop very often due to various defects even, though they may not be strictly called the manufacturing defect, but the fact remains that these defects are there in a new vehicle therefore they cannot be dissociated from manufacturing, then the purchaser is entitled to get some compensation from the dealer and the manufacturer.7. In the light of the observations of the District Forum in respect of various defects in the vehicle and in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others [2016 ALL SCR 1714] (Supra), I do not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the fora below. Consequently the revision petition No. 2213 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.
Decision : Revision dismissed.