MARUTI UDYOG LTD. vs J.S. Teja

THIS appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the order dated 13.04.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Complaint Case No. C -155 of 2001 - J.S. Teja Vs. Maruti Sales & Service & Anr. by which, while allowing complaint, OP was directed to refund Rs.92,818/ - along with cost of litigation of Rs.2500/-.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent purchased Car HR 26D 7409 from Rajesh Sagar on the guarantee and assurance from OP/respondent. This car was sold by OP No. 2 to Rajesh Sagar. In March 1999, due to some technical fault, vehicle was given for repairs to OP No. 1 and paid Rs.18,000/ -, but the fault was not rectified. Again In March, 2000, due to technical fault, vehicle was given for repairs to OP No. 1, who promised it to deliver back within 10 days, but delivered after 53 days after charging Rs.46,818/ - without rectifying fault. On follow up, the officer of OP inspected the car and apprised that it was imported car and its parts are not available. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant claimed aforesaid amount along with Rs.28,000/ - towards denting/ painting. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP No. 1 carried out repairs of 5 years old used vehicle to the best of its competency without any assurance or warranty. Car was sold by OP No. 2 in auction "as is where is basis". There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the respondent. It was further alleged that Rs.28,000/ - expenses incurred in denting/painting cannot be included in the repair cost. It was further submitted that in March, 1999 the odometer shows mileage 16,131 Kms. whereas on 21st March, 2000, odometer showed mileage 19,258 Kms. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint as mentioned above. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent in person and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that as the vehicle was purchased by Rajesh Sagar in auction conducted by OP No. 2, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No. 2; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint against OP. It was further argued that complaint was allowed even without any evidence and directed to refund even expenses incurred on denting/painting and cost of spare parts and further submitted that no complaint regarding any fault in the vehicle was made after March, 2000; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that vehicle was not roadworthy after repair and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that OP No. 2 auctioned the vehicle on "as is where is basis" and Rajesh Sagar purchased vehicle from OP No. 2. Admittedly, this vehicle was of 1997 model. Complainant purchased vehicle from Rajesh Sagar and he has not impleaded Rajesh Sagar as a party in the complaint and as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No. 2 and no evidence to the fact that OP No. 2 was paid any amount by the complainant towards repair of the vehicle, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint against OP No. 2 / Appellant No. 1. As far as denting/painting charges are concerned, complainant has not placed bills on record to substantiate that he paid Rs.28,000/ - towards denting/painting to OP No. 1. Even if there is any bill, complainant could not show any deficiency in service regarding denting/painting of the vehicle and in such circumstances, complainant was not entitled to refund of Rs.28,000/ -; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing refund of Rs.28,000/ -.

AS far as first repair bill of Rs.18,000/ - is concerned, vehicle was repaired in March, 1999 and after that vehicle was in running condition otherwise it would not have picked up technical faults in March, 2000. We do not find any deficiency of service in repair of old vehicle in March, 1999.

AS far as repairs in March, 2000 is concerned, perusal of appeal clearly reveals that Rs.48,133.62 has been charged for spare parts and only Rs.1300/ - has been charged for labour work. Respondent has not disputed replacement of parts and in such circumstances, no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of OP No. 1 in rendering service as no evidence has been led by complainant to prove that after this repair vehicle again sustained any technical fault. Not only this, between March, 1999 to March, 2000, vehicle had run more than 3000 Kms. and in such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that there was any deficiency of service in repairs done by OP No. 1.

PERUSAL of record further reveals that complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of the complaint, but has filed only rejoinder affidavit rebutting written statements that too without any verification. Learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint without any evidence on record and in such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY , appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and impugned order dated 13.4.2007 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint Case No. C -155/2001 - J.S. Teja Vs. Maruti Sales & Services & Anr. is set aside with no order as to costs.