Home
Consumer Case Studies
 
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
 
Hon' ble Mr Justice J D Kapoor, President & Mr Mahesh Chandra, Member
 
Amrik Singh Sambhi – Appellant
Versus
Maruti Udyog Ltd & Ors. - Respondents
 
Appeal No. A-551 of 2003 Decided on 16.12.2005
 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 15 - Appeal against order of District Forum - Complaint of manufacturing defect in car - Car catching fire in parking due to short circuit - Whether there was any manufacturing defect? (Yes) - Whether entitled to compensation in addition to getting insurance claim? (Yes) - Appeal allowed.

Held: Be that as it may, the fact remains that the car caught fire while it was parked and this cannot rule out possibility of some manufacturing defect in the car and therefore we allow the appeal & set aside the impugned order.
 
ORDER
 
J D Kapoor, President: Appellant purchased a Maruti Car manufactured by the respondent in February 1995. Due to some alleged manufacturing defect the car suddenly caught fire and was damaged on 5.6.1996 when it was parked at his premises. The complaint of the Appellant seeking compensation from the respondent on account of having firstly sold a car with manufacturing defect and secondly falsely representing it to be a model of 1995 whereas it was a model of 1994 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.4.2003.

2.
Feeling aggrieved the Appellant has directed this appeal.

3.
So far as allegation of having sold a car of 1994 model being the car of 1995 the fact remains that the car was booked in the year 1995 and Respondent No.1 had delivered the car to its dealer M/s. Pasco Automobiles on 1.12.1994 and therefore the Respondent No.1 cannot be accused of having played fraud upon the Appellant.

4.
As regards the allegations that the car caught fire when it was parked, which was due to short circuit emanating from the manufacturing defect, the Appellant has already been compensated through his insurance claim.

5.
However, the main grievance of the Appellant is the inordinately long time taken by the Respondent in effecting the repairs in the car as according to him the car remained with the Respondent No.2 from 6.6.1996 to 28.6.1996. However, the retention of the car by the Respondent for such, a long period raises inference that the car was having some other defect.

6.
The aforesaid claim of the Appellant has been refuted by the Respondent inasmuch as that the car was delivered on 6.6.1996 and returned to him on 19.6.1996 after repairs; the former again brought the vehicle on 22.6.1996 for accident repairs which were carried out on 25.6.1996.

7.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the car caught fire while it was parked and this cannot rule out possibility of some manufacturing defect in the car & therefore we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order by directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000 as the Appellant has already been compensated by way of insurance claim and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation.

8.
Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

9.
Bank Guarantee/FOR, if any, furnished by the Appellant be returned forthwith.

Result: Appeal allowed.