MANDOVI MOTORS PVT. LTD Vs. PRAVENCHANDRA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions, RP No. 1445/2008 and RP No. 1961/2008, have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 11.01.2008, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1227/2007, "Mandovi Motors Pvt. Ltd. versus Pravenchandra Shetty & Anr." and FA No. 1200/2007, "Maruti Udyog Ltd. versus Pravenchandra Shetty & Anr." respectively. Both these appeals were directed against the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore, vide which the petitioners/OPs were directed to replace the defective car sold to complainant/respondent no.1 and also to pay compensation of Rs.17,000/-.

(2.) For the convenience, parties are referred as they were before the District Forum, i.e., Pravenchandra Shetty, complainant, M/s Mandovi Motors Pvt. Ltd., OP No. 1 and Maruti Udyog Limited, OP No. 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1 is the authorised dealer of OP No.2, Maruti Udyog Ltd., having right of sale and service of Maruti vehicles to Dakshin Kannada District. The OP No.2 is the manufacturer of Maruti Cars. The complainant had purchased a Maruti Wagon R VXI Euro 2 car from OP No.1 for Rs.3,73,364.62ps. on 29.03.2003, which was duly registered by the Regional Transport Officer, Mangalore. The complainant also availed a loan of Rs.3 lakh from ICICI Bank and the said car was covered by warranty for a period of 24 months from the date of delivery or 40,000/- km whichever occurs first. It has been alleged in the complaint that since the date of purchase, abnormal vibration was being felt during driving of the vehicle between the speed of 40 Km/hour to 80 km/hour. The complainant took the vehicle to OP No. 1 a number of times and they tried to remove the defects every time and replaced certain parts as well but to no avail.

(3.) The complainant has cited a number of specific dates and specific instances in the complaint, concerning the defect in the vehicle. The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to replace the car and also pay Rs.17,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. The State Commission also upheld this order by dismissing the two appeals filed by petitioners/OPs. It is against this order that the present petitions have been filed.