LAWS(NCD)-2019-12-13

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED Vs. M. SHIVASHANKARAPPA

Decided On December 13, 2019
Maruti Suzuki India Limited Appellant
V/S
M. Shivashankarappa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which was the opposite party No.3 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga, (in short 'the District Forum') in the original complaint case no.98/2010 against the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.933 of 2011.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Swift Dizire VDI car from respondent No.2/opposite party No.1 on 03.08.2009 for a consideration of Rs.5,81,088/-. From the early stage of purchase of the vehicle the vehicle started giving trouble and there was a break down at 757 KMs. The complainant kept the car in his compound and he approached respondent no.2 through telephone. Opposite party No.1 informed him that he would send a mechanic on 17.08.2009. On instructions, few persons came to the house of the complainant on 18.08.2009 and tried to start the vehicle but it did not start. Opposite party No.1 then by towing the vehicle took it to Shimoga. The complainant being not satisfied with the work carried out by opposite party No.1 addressed a letter dated 25.08.2009 requesting to refund the amount paid by him with interest from 03.08.2009 or for replacement of the vehicle with another new vehicle. On 26.10.2009 also the car after running 1655 kms. broke down suddenly near Tumkur. Opposite party No.1 was informed by the complainant. Complainant then took the vehicle to Tumkur for repairing the same at a service center with a complaint of engine over heating but in vain. It was alleged by the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the car and the complainant went through mental agony and hardship.

(3.) The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, which was allowed vide its order dated 24.01.2011 as follows:-