MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. R SACHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions challenge the order dated 29.11.2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission'), by which the State Commission disposed of three appeals (no. 762, 852 and 855 of 2006) filed respectively by the two petitioners before us as well as respondent no.1 in both the petitions who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, 'the District Forum'). The other two respondents in RP no. 565 of 2007 are ICICI Bank Ltd. and the petitioner in RP no. 972 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the petitioner in RP no. 565 of 2007 as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (or, 'MSIL'), petitioner in RP no. 972 of 2007 as Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. (or, 'CACL'), Customer Care Unit of ICICI Bank as 'the Bank' and R. Sachdev as 'the complainant'.

(2.) (i) The case of the complainant before the District Form was that he was 'persuaded' to buy a Maruti Baleno VXI model car from CACL which was the dealer of MSIL, manufacturer of the car. For this, he paid Rs.3,03,015/ - as down payment and the balance by way of loan made available by the Bank. He alleged that despite the down payment cheque not having been credited to the account of CACL, the car was delivered by a sales person of the said dealer on 27.02.2005, i.e., a Sunday. Moreover, the Bank sanctioned the loan, without any verification of his financial status in a day or two, because the first discussion with the sales person of CACL took place only on 25.02.2005. On this basis, he claimed that this was an elaborate and collusive marketing gimmick to pressurise a senior citizen into buying this car instead of a Wagon R which he had thought of buying as the car best suited for his requirements. According to the complainant, his requirements for a car were (a) very comfortable both to drive as well as to be driven in; (b) very good interiors, which would be long -lasting; (c) good pick -up and stable driving at all speeds; (d) very good air -conditioning without the use of the illegal "policy" (sic?) film; (e) fuel efficient, giving at least 15 -16 km per litre of petrol as fuel guzzlers were on the complainant's "hate list" as he saw it as a crime and a national wastage to use a fuel guzzling vehicles; (f) with low -costing and easily available spares; and (g) easily manoeuvrable and small to fit tight parking spaces in Delhi. (ii) Further, according to the complaint, the complainant had already decided to go in for the Wagon R or because "........ in my heart of hearts I knew no one could change my rightly taken decision as this car, i.e., Wagon R fitted all my requirements as given out by Maruti Udyog Limited". (iii) To support his allegations of mala fide intentions and dubious marketing practices of MSIL, CACL and the Bank, the complainant added that he was offered free insurance on the car and Maruti genuine parts which included an MP 3 Player and a Mini Car Fridge at a combined price of Rs.18,000/ - as per the estimate of the dealer. (iv) As regard the car, the complainant alleged that it was very noisy to drive (including underbody noise) and the suspension (including the rear suspension) was "absolute failure". With these complaints, he took the car to the workshop of CACL, where he was advised by an attending person to replace the (originally supplied) tyres with tubeless tyres. He did so at the cost of Rs.10,000/ - but the problem persisted. He further alleged that he got the car inspected by another Garage (Bagga's, Link Road) where it was found that the engine mounting bolts were very loose, suspension link arm bolts were also loose and one of them was missing. These defects were, however, taken care of by CACL, according to the complainant. (v) Further, while the dealer at CACL had assured that the car would do 15 kms to a litre of petrol, the actual consumption was 6 -7 kms per litre. This led to huge financial loss to the complainant. (vi) He was also persuaded go for Teflon coating on the car at the instance of the CACL dealer at the cost of Rs.5,500/ -which permanently damaged the original paint work of the car and the car lost his sheen and newness. (vii) He further alleged that the gears slipped from the fifth to the neutral position because of loss of power, whenever the car met with a bump on the road. (viii) He further alleged of inferior quality of plastic and rubber parts, hardening of wipers making their movement noisy and jerky and having to spend additional sums to buy high quality imported foot mats in order to control the underbody noise, extremely costly and not easily available spare parts, defective stereo sound system leading to the sound cracking at higher volumes and non -functioning of car fridge and MP 3 player. (ix) The complainant also alleged that though the Bank officials had stated that the interest on the loan was 7.5% per annum, the actual rate of interest was more than 9% per annum and despite his many phone calls the Bank did not furnish him the Amortisation Schedule which was mandatory. (x) Finally, he alleged that the insurance company which provided the insurance cover for his car was hand -in -glove with the dealer CACL, because the latter paid the insurance premium for the first year. Moreover, the insurance company did not settle the complainant's claim after a theft had taken place in the car though he filed his claim well in time after completing all the legal formalities. (xi) With these allegations, he prayed for refund of the entire amount paid for the car, with interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs. 3 lakh for harassment, etc.

(3.) (i) Both MSIL and CACL contested the complaint before the District Forum by filing written version and supporting documents. (ii) CACL stated that after purchase of the car in late February 2005, the complainant brought the car to CACL work shop on 03.03.2005 complaining of noise from the front side of the car this was attended to and the complainant took the car after executing satisfaction note. On 11.03.2005, the complainant again came to CACL work shop for re -inspection of Teflon coating of the car which was done. Finally on 22.03.2005, the complainant brought the car to CACL work shop for first free servicing, which was done as would be evident from the relevant job card. CACL specifically stated that after 22.03.2005, the complainant never brought his car to its garage/work shop. CACL further stated that it was, therefore, surprised to receive the legal notice dated 27.05.2005 from the complainant alleging the following: (a) Hot and cold container not working; (b) car had noise; (c) car did not give 12 -13 km average despite use of high speed petrol; (d) original paint had been spoiled due to defective service. In this notice, the complainant claimed refund of the payment made for the car along with 18% compound interest as well as damages or new car in lieu of the present defective car within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. CACL replied in detail to this legal notice. While denying each and every allegation, the CACL also offered to the complainant to bring the car to its work shop and assured that if there was any problem it would be duly attended to. It was specifically stated that the complainant had never complained about the hot and cold container, engineers of the CACL did not advise the complainant about the purchase of radial car tyres in connection with the problem of noise in the car. Petrol consumption of the car could be tested if the car was brought to the CACL and any problem noticed in this connection could be rectified, and, that if there was any problem with the Teflon coating it could be examined only if the car was brought for inspection. (iii) On the other hand, MSIL contended in its written version that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and that the complainant did not point out any defect which could be construed as manufacturing defect as would be clear from the job card of the first service on 22.03.2005. In particular, the MSIL contended that it had taken 13 measures for noise reduction, suspension system of the car was in order and the problems faced by the complainant were mainly on account of the speed breakers of Delhi roads which were not in accordance with the standard specification prescribed by the Central Road Research Institute. There was no false representation regarding the fuel consumption of the car which depended on various factors.