MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED Vs. NALINBHAI RASIKBHAI KANANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Porbandar in complaint No-58 of 2012 dated 21-08-2013 the appellant's present appeal against the respondent original complainant.

(2.) Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their status as it was in original complaint.

(3.) Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated as under. It is the case of complainant that he purchased a brand new Maruli Swift VDI Car bearing registration No UJ-25A-2330 having chassis No-675804 from the M/S Manan Auto Link Privates Ltd. (original op-3) on 22/3/2011 for a sum of Rs. 5,41,275.00 Original op-3 had gave warranty card and certificate of extended warranty registration vide contract No-112264093 dated 06, April, 2011. The complainant has averred in his complaint that he was using this car from 24/3/2011 and car has travelled for about 17,000.00 kilometers only. But he was not satisfied with this car and suffering lot of trouble due to some technical fault of manufacturing. It has been also averred that original OP. No-4 Atul Moters Private Ltd I.E company's service station tried to solve problem and cured the technical problems and return back on 28/05/2012. With assurance that all defects are removed. It has been also averred that on 22nd July 2012 he travelled with his family from Rajkot to Jamnagar and during the travelling car in question, was stopped on the Highway and car was emitting a huge smoke and the temperature of car had gone to high for one hour and again he faced lot of difficulties such type of regular problems raised many times so it is a question about life safety. It has been also averred that thereafter vehicle was left with O. P No-4 on 24/7/2012.It is also averred that thereafter he complained to the Mr. R.K. Dugged General Manager customer satisfaction and Export Service of appellant, period and that they should replace the car but they did not replace the car and instead of that informed the complainant that vehicle in question will be repaired. It has been further averred that complainant sent a Legal Notice dated 30/07/2012 calling upon the opponent to replace the vehicle and in response thereto the works manager herein vide his letter dated 17/08/2012 informed the complainant that the vehicle shall be repaired at the expense of complainant. It has been further averred that by selling a defective vehicle having manufacturing defects the opponent have indulged in the unfair trade practise and committed deficiency in service the complaint and his family has suffered a lot and they had to hire a taxi and incur heavy expenses for their daily travelling. The car with the manufacturing defect is lying with the O P No-4 since 24/07/2012 even though it is within the warranty period.