LAWS(NCD)-2015-3-74

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD Vs. VJAYAN V ANAND

Decided On March 20, 2015
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD Appellant
V/S
Vjayan V Anand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.03.2009, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in FA No. 97/2009, "General Manager, M/s. Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijayan V. Anand", vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 31.12.2008, passed by the District Forum Palakkad, Kerala, allowing the consumer complaint No. 101/2006 was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent-1 Vijayan V. Anand filed complaint No. 101/2006 before the District Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that he purchased a vehicle Maruti Baleno LXi, manufactured by petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Limited through the dealer, Indus Motor Company Pvt. Limited, respondent no. 2 & 3 / OP no. 2 & 3. The said vehicle was purchased as per invoice number 83511 dated 10.02.2005. It has been alleged in the complaint that the dealer informed the complainant at the time of purchase that the vehicle will be of 2005 model. However, the certificate of registration of the vehicle as per registration no. KL09Q-6194 issued by the Regional Transport Office, Alathur mentions the year of the manufacture of the vehicle as 2004. The complainant asked respondent no. 2 & 3 / OP No. 2 & 3 to replace the vehicle as he had purchased the vehicle under the impression that he was being supplied a vehicle of 2005 model. On their failure to replace the vehicle, he filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the OPs to deliver the latest model of the vehicle or pay a compensation of ?1lakh, alongwith a sum of ?25,000/- for the mental agony suffered and also the cost of proceedings. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP-1 by filing a written statement saying that the petitioner manufacturer was not a party to the transaction of sale/purchase of vehicle between the complainant and OP No. 2 & 3. There was, therefore, no cause for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against petitioner/OP No. 1. It was also stated that the petitioner/OP No. 1 was not responsible for any alleged act of omission or commission of OP No. 2 & 3 in any manner and hence, complaint against them was not maintainable. As stated in the order of the District Forum, OP No. 2 & 3 contended before the District Forum that the year of manufacture of the vehicle was certified by the RTO, based on the cut-off chassis number received from OP No. 1, manufacturer every year and this could not be changed by any one. They denied that they had given assurance to the complainant that the model of the vehicle will be of 2005.

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 31.12.2008 allowed the complaint stating that in the sale certificate on form 21, issued by the dealer, it had been stated that the year of manufacture was January 2005, although the vehicle was of 2004 model. The District Forum directed the OPs including the petitioner to pay an amount of ?30,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith ?1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Being aggrieved against this order, the petitioner as well as OP No. 2 & 3 filed an appeal before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed in limine vide impugned order dated 23.03.2009, saying that in the sale certificate on form 21, it was wrongly mentioned that the year of manufacture was January 2005. The present revision petition has been filed by the OP No. 1/manufacturer of the vehicle alone against the order of the State Commission.