MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED Vs. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this miscellaneous appeal, the appellants assail the judgment/order dtd. 5/1/2015 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter "œthe Commission ") in Complaint No. 57/2009. By the impugned order, the Commission directed the respondents therein to refund a sum of Rs.7,00,000.00 to the complainant along with Rs.5,000.00 as litigation costs, while retaining the vehicle in question; or, in the alternative, to replace the said vehicle with a new one within six weeks.

(2.) The impugned judgment is challenged on the ground that it has been passed in complete disregard of the settled legal principles governing the adjudication of complaints alleging manufacturing defects. It is submitted that no expert opinion from any accredited or competent technical laboratory was obtained to substantiate the alleged defect. The Commission, it is urged, also failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the warranty and the period during which it was operative. Furthermore, the Commission had no legal basis to discard the report of the Deputy Director or the certificate issued by the Area Service Manager of the appellant company, both of which categorically affirmed that the vehicle was in proper working condition. Once the vehicle had been inspected and found defect-free, the Commission committed a manifest error in ignoring such material evidence.

(3.) It is further submitted that the Commission overlooked the legal framework governing such disputes and proceeded to order the replacement of the vehicle without any factual foundation or legal justification. The award, it is argued, was passed although the manufacturer had not originally been arrayed as a party to the complaint. The Commission, though not a civil court, impleaded the manufacturer suo motu at a later stage, which, according to the appellants, was without jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. On this ground alone, the findings recorded against the appellant are said to be vitiated.