11 years over Maruti Alto: Why NCDRC called decade long legal battle ‘exercise in futility’

The possession of the vehicle for these long years has neither benefited the petitioner nor the consumer, said the NCDRC. (Image enhanced using AI)

Decision: An exercise in futility

• Taking note of the long passage of time, the unusable condition of the vehicle, and the equities involved, the NCDRC disposed of the revision petition with a number of directions.
• The amount of Rs 2,43,000 deposited with this commission together with interest accrued thereon shall be released to the petitioner and the consumer in the ratio of 50% each, it said.
• The commission concluded by observing that restoring the district commission’s order at this stage would be “an exercise in futility” given the age of the vehicle and the prolonged litigation.

Neither consumer, nor dealer benefitted

• The complainant-consumer (One pretty Guru) had set up a case as if the petitioner (the automobile dealer) had supplied a vehicle manufactured in 2011 displaying it to be a vehicle of 2012.
• Both the parties seem to be equally responsible for this situation but the fact is that the vehicle remained with the respondent-consumer throughout.
• After 15 years, it would be just and expedient to reduce the liability of the petitioner and also compensate the consumer to a certain extent.
• The vehicle is from 2011 and 15 years have passed by and the life of the vehicle has almost reached its expiry under the current Motor Vehicle Laws.
• There was no defect in the vehicle.
• The possession of the vehicle for these long years has neither benefited the petitioner nor the consumer.
• She had not been able to independently enjoy the ownership of the vehicle in the absence of a valid registration.
• The petitioner cannot be saddled with the entire liability.
• No justification for the state commission to have directed for replacement of the vehicle in the absence of any defect in the vehicle itself.
• This is not a case relating to any manufacturing defect or deficiency in services relating to any defect in the vehicle.
• The dispute was raised by the consumer on the ground that the vehicle was not being registered due to its year of manufacture.
• The district commission very appropriately directed the petitioner to get the vehicle registered and bear all the expenses in relation.
• Instead the petitioner filed an appeal, and the consumer also did not lag far behind and independently filed another appeal claiming the relief of replacement of the vehicle.
• We do not prima facie find any justification for either of them to have preferred appeals without there being a manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any deficiency in the services relating to the vehicle.
• Also Read | Hidden medical history costs Mumbai widow Rs 78 lakh as NCDRC upholds ‘utmost good faith’ in insurance

No manufacturing defect

• The dispute dates back to July 25, 2012, when the consumer purchased a Maruti Alto LX BS-IV from M/s Modern Automobiles, an authorised dealer, at Chandigarh.
• A Form-21 sale certificate was issued at the time of sale, which indicated that the vehicle had been manufactured in November 2011.
• Trouble arose when the consumer approached the registering authority and claimed that she had been under the impression that the vehicle was a 2012 model.
• Alleging misrepresentation, she repeatedly approached the dealer, following which a second Form-21 sale certificate was issued showing the month of manufacture as March 2012.
• The dealer justified the second certificate by relying on the invoice dated March 18, 2012, received from the manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki India Limited.
• The consumer filed a consumer complaint in 2013, leading to an order by the district consumer commission on April 9, 2014.
• The district commission directed the dealer to get the vehicle registered at its own expense, pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.
• Both sides challenged the decision.
• On May 29, 2014, the state consumer commission, allowed the complainant’s appeal and ordered replacement of the vehicle with a brand-new 2012 model, or the latest model if unavailable, along with compensation.
• Aggrieved, the dealer approached the NCDRC by filing a revision petition in 2014.
• On September 4, 2014, the commission stayed the operation of the state commission’s order.
• Subsequently, on December 12, 2014, the stay was made conditional upon the dealer depositing Rs 2.43 lakh with the commission.
• The commission also granted liberty to the dealer to take custody of the vehicle, which had run only 2,000 km, but the dealer chose not to do so.
• As a result, the vehicle remained with the consumer throughout the pendency of proceedings.