MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. Vs. SANTANU PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Opposite Parties No. 4 and 5 in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the correctness and legality of the order, dated 25.04.2017, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission"), in By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.

(2.) The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner herein against the order, dated 08.08.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Pgs. At Barasat (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 38 of 2014. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1 herein, the District Forum had directed the Authorized Dealer of the Petitioner, namely Premier Car World Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 3, to replace the car purchased by the Complainant within two months from the date of the said order, and pay to the Complainant compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental harassment etc. Further, while awarding litigation costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/-, in favour of the Complainant, the District Forum had also directed the Opposite Parties to comply with the said order within the stipulated time, failing which they were required to pay punitive damages @ Rs.300/- per day in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

(3.) In the year 2013 the Complainant had purchased a Swift Car, manufactured by the Petitioner, from its Authorized Dealer. After completion of necessary formalities, the car was delivered to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, though, in terms of Contract (OBC), dated 13.11.2012, the Dealer was required to deliver the car of 2013 make but it delivered the one which was manufactured in the year 2012, which fact came to his notice when he received the Registration Certificate in which the year of manufacture was mentioned. Having come to know about the said fact, he approached the Opposite Parties, with a request to furnish the details as regards actual date of manufacturing of the car and the depute technical staff to show the same as engraved on the chassis of the car but without any result. In view of revised sale certificate dated 30.07.2013 issued by the Petitioner, the Dealer vide its letter dated 21.10.2013, addressed to the RTO, stated that the car was manufactured in January, 2013. It was averred that while issuing the revised sale certificate, the Petitioner forgot that the chassis of the car bore the date of manufacturing as December 2012 and not January 2013 and accordingly the Opposite Parties could not claim that it was a "system error", as stated by the Dealer to the RTO in its aforesaid letter. In this view of the matter, the Complainant got issued a letter dated 04.09.2013 to the Opposite Parties, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, which evoked no response. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the aforesaid counts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.