Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Jose Kurian

HEARD Counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondents have been duly served by dasti notice. No one has entered appearance on their behalf. The Respondents were informed that the matter is fixed for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

THE District Forum had awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 plus cost of Rs. 1,500. In appeal filed by the Petitioner as also Opposite-Party No. 2-Dealer, the compensation was reduced to Rs. 10,000 with cost of Rs. 1,500. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision.

THE grievance of the Counsel for the Petitioner is that the certificate of sale was issued by Opposite Party No. 2 dealer wherein the manufacture of vehicle was shown as May, 2006 whereas the registration certificate shows that the manufacture of the vehicle was in fact January, 2006. In these circumstances, obviously the manufacturer could not be held liable and the responsibility in respect of the transaction, in question, could be fixed only upon the Dealer/Opposite Party No. 2.

IN view of this, while allowing this revision, we set aside the order of the fora below fixing joint and several responsibility on the present Petitioner. The amount awarded by the State Commission shall be payable only by Opposite Party No. 2/Respondent No. 2 herein. The revision stands disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Revision disposed of.