MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED Vs. RONALD DSILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition bearing Nos. 780-781 of 2020 has been filed by the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 1 against Respondents Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and Revision Petitions bearing No. 920 of 2021 and No. 921 of 2021 have been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 against Respondents/Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 challenging the common impugned Order dtd. 10/7/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in Appeals bearing Nos. 177/2012 and 215/2012. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dtd. 13/12/2011 passed by the I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 1728/2011.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti car Model-WagonR-LXI bearing Registration No. KA-03-MN-6473 from the Opposite Party No. 2 which was manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3,97,887.00 (on loan), on 24/3/2011. It was the case of the Complainant that the vehicle had already run 48 Kms on the date of delivery and the vehicle started running into trouble after travelling for short distances. Moreover, the Opposite Party No. 2 showed no interest to rectify the problems and the problems continued to exist. Again, the car stopped to move after travelling less than 3 Kms on 4/4/2011 whereafter it was informed by an Authorised Agent, M/s Aryan Motors, claiming to be acting on the instructions of Opposite Party No. 2 that the car suffered from Defective Fuse, Defective Fan, Leaking Coolant, Heating up of radiator due to defective coolant and several other defects due to improper cooling which were a result of coolant system break down. It was further informed that the vehicle was unworthy of further use. Consequently, the vehicle was taken for repairs when it had run only 13 Kms. After repairing the vehicle, the Complainant was informed vide letter dtd. 8/4/2011 that the vehicle was ready for delivery. However, the Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties, as he had lost confidence, asking to replace the defective vehicle with a new vehicle together with other ancillary reliefs. The Opposite Party No.2 replied to the said Notice contending that the Complainant had not started the vehicle till 4/4/2011 even after taking the delivery on 24/3/2011 and there were no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Parties seeking payment of Rs.3,97,887.00 or replacement of defective car with a new car along with other ancillary reliefs.

(3.) The Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended that the liability of Opposite Party No.1 is specific as per the Warranty policy which is a part and parcel of the sale contract and the Complainant cannot be allowed to raise a claim which is not covered under the Warranty. It was further contended that the Complainant got the vehicle attended through some local/unauthorised mechanic resulting in main fuse failure and discharge of battery which resulted into a starting problem. Such an act is a grave violation of Clauses 4(e), (h) and (j) of Warranty and hence, the Warranty obligations of the Opposite Party No.1 stand forfeited. It was further contended that before the vehicle is launched in the market, it undergoes several processes of Statutory (Government) approvals and compliances apart from internal research and development. It was stated that the Complainant took the delivery of the vehicle from the Opposite Party No.2 in a perfectly alright and defect free condition on 24/3/2011. It was also stated that the Complainant had not used the vehicle which remained parked/idle for many days and so the battery got discharged and the Complainant on his free will called an unauthorised mechanic for jump starting the vehicle. Hence, the cause of action of the problem was external tampering of electrical system of the vehicle. Hence, the Complainant suffered due to his own negligent acts. Moreover, the Complainant failed to take possession of the vehicle which was kept in perfect OK condition by the Opposite Party No.2 despite several reminders. Further, any mechanical defect was denied by the Opposite Party No.1 and was contended that the Complainant had failed to bring on record any material to prove any such manufacturing defect. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.