S.P.BARTHWAL vs MARUTI UDYOG Limited

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 15.6.2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 351/2001 - entitled Shri S.P. Barthwal v. Maruti Udyog Limited & Anr. THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Mr. S.P. Barthwal, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the appellant had purchased a Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. DL-6-CE-9956 through respondent No. 2, the authorised dealer of respondent No. 1 on 8.3.1999. It was stated in the complaint filed by the appellant that the appellant visited his native town in Garhwal on 23rd and 24th April, 1999, where he had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of his younger brother. It was stated that on 24.4.1999 when the appellant was bringing the newly wed couple along with their personal belongings and other valuable items, the van caught fire about 28 kms. from Kotdwara. A report regarding the above incident was lodged with Police Station Lans Down on 24.4.1999 itself. Since the car in question was insured with the Insurance Company, a claim under the Insurance Policy was preferred with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company in terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy had already reimbursed the loss of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the appellant. It was stated that though the loss of the vehicle stood reimbursed to the appellant but the cost of the valuable articles such as jewellery, sarees, etc., destroyed as a result of fire, had not been reimbursed. It was stated that the appellant had sustained the above said loss due to manufacturing defect in that vehicle. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum, it was prayed that the respondent Maruti Udyog Limited be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,35,560/- as detailed in para 4 of the complaint (Copy at pages 8-9 of the paper book).

THE claim of the appellant had been resisted by the respondent Maruti Udyog Limited. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent Maruti Udyog Limited, the respondent had taken certain preliminary objections while denying that the vehicle in question had any manufacturing defect. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that for want of an expert opinion of any technical expert, it cannot be stated that the vehicle in question actually had any manufacturing defect because fire in the vehicle could have been caused not only on account of manufacturing defect but also due to various reasons including heating up of engine and leaking of the coolant oil, etc. It has been held by the learned District Forum that the appellant had failed to establish his case. On the basis of the above finding, the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question caught fire on 24.4.1999. it is also not in dispute that in terms of the Insurance Policy, the appellant has been granted relief insofar as the vehicle in question is concerned. The case of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before District Forum in nutshell was that due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the vehicle in question caught fire as a result of which valuables including sarees and ornaments had been destroyed. The onus of proving that the vehicle in question had manufacturing defect which could have led to the outbreak of fire, was on the appellant. The appellant, in the given facts, has failed to discharge the onus which was on him. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.