|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUEL efficiency, engine performance, pick-up, speed and safety are all features that one looks at while purchasing a vehicle. Since test-driving alone will not give the complete picture, one goes by the information provided by the dealer and the manufacturer, and the promises made by them about the performance of the vehicle at the time of purchase. If the performance does not match the claims, then obviously, the customer will have an issue with the dealer and the manufacturer, and if they do not satisfactorily resolve it, then the he will file a case before the court. Now, given the fact that the wheels of justice move slowly even in the consumer courts, obviously the vehicle will be several years old by the time the case is finally decided. The national consumer disputes redressal commission’s remarks in this case are highly relevant, and I quote: "As the complainant could not get relief from the dealer and the manufacturer, he was compelled to file a complaint before the district forum, and as the forum dismissed the complaint, he had to file an appeal before the state commission, and the manufacturer and the dealer did not comply with the orders of the commission. The complainant was forced to litigate at all levels of consumer fora. Hence, 11 years have lapsed. Therefore, to argue that now the vehicle has covered 66,500 km and, therefore, the vehicle cannot be replaced does not hold water." The complaint here revolved around the vehicle’s pick-up and speed. The customer, in his complaint before the court, had alleged that the Maruti Gypsy bought by him in July, 1998, was defective as it could not be driven beyond a certain speed. He also pointed out that two Maruti Gypsy vehicles bought by him earlier in 1994 and 1996 had crossed 120 kmph. The district consumer disputes redressal forum dismissed his complaint, but the state consumer disputes redressal commission, before which he filed an appeal, found reason in the arguments put forward by the client. It pointed out that even though the manufacturer claimed to have got the vehicle test-driven, it was not substantiated in evidence by filing the affidavits of the person who had performed the test drive and the engineer of the dealer present during the time. Besides, such a test drive should have been conducted in the presence of the complainant, which was not done. It also pointed out that the two representatives of the dealer who had checked the vehicle on two occasions had confirmed that the vehicle could no go beyond 95 kmph. This was again not denied by the manufacturer or the dealer. In the end, the commission directed the dealer and the manufacturer to take the necessary remedial measures to ensure the desired pick-up and speed in the vehicle, and deliver it to the complainant within 30 days. If the defects are not removed, they shall give the complainant either a new vehicle or repay the entire cost of the vehicle along with interest calculated at 6 per cent per annum, and also pay Rs 10,000 as general damages and Rs 2,000 as costs. In their appeal before
the national commission, the dealer and the manufacturer argued that
the warranty was for only one year from the date of purchase, and even
here it was for replacement of parts only. Under no circumstances can
the vehicle be replaced or its value refunded, particularly after it
was in use for 11 years. Dismissing these arguments and upholding the
order of the state commission, the national commission said:
"Taking into consideration both the speedometer as well as
specification in the website, the vehicle should run at least 126 km
per hour, but it could not run beyond 100 kmph. Hence, there is a
manufacturing defect in the vehicle. (Maruti Udyog Ltd vs M.Tariq
Irshad, RP No 93 of 2005, decided on July 14, 2009)."
|
|||
|
|
|||
