Authorised Maruti Dealer Liable For Failing To Repair Accident-Damaged Vehicle Within Promised Time: MP State Consumer Commission
The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, comprising President Justice Smt. Sunita Yadav and Member Dr. (Mrs.) Monika Malik, has upheld the District Consumer Commission's finding that Shubh Motors Private Limited, an authorised Maruti Suzuki dealer, was guilty of deficiency in service for failing to repair and deliver a customer's accident-damaged vehicle within the promised time despite repeated assurances.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Neeraj Gupta, owned a Maruti Ertiga vehicle, which met with an accident on 1 April 2016 and was taken to the workshop of Shubh Motors Private Limited, an authorised Maruti Suzuki dealer, for repairs. The dealer assured that the vehicle would be repaired and delivered within 20 to 25 days. However, despite repeated follow-ups, the repairs were not completed within the promised period.
The complainant alleged that the workshop opened the vehicle's engine in his absence despite assuring him that it would be opened only in his presence. Further, the dealer neither completed the repairs nor furnished the final repair bill or details of the insurance claim received towards the repairs. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panna.
The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the dealer to complete the repairs, recover only 50% of the engine repair cost from the complainant after adjusting the insurance claim amount, pay ₹98,000 as compensation and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs.
Aggrieved, Shubh Motors Private Limited preferred a First Appeal before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, challenging the findings of deficiency in service and the compensation.
Contentions of the Parties
The opposite party /dealer (Shubh Motors Private Limited) contended that the District Commission had erred in relying on an unauthenticated audio recording in violation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It submitted that the repairs commenced only after the insurance survey was completed and that the vehicle had been fully repaired and was ready for delivery, but the complainant failed to collect it and clear the outstanding repair charges. The dealer denied any deficiency in service and sought setting aside of the District Commission's order.
Observation and Decision
The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the dealer failed to produce any evidence establishing that the complainant's vehicle had actually been repaired or that he had ever been informed to collect it.
The Commission noted that no final repair bill had been placed on record and that the dealer had failed to disclose the amount received from the insurer towards the repairs despite an admitted insurance survey. The Commission observed that the dealer had not specifically denied the complainant's allegation that the engine was opened in his absence despite an assurance to the contrary. These circumstances established deficiency in service on the part of the dealer.
Finding no error or illegality in the District Commission's order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the directions requiring the dealer to complete the repairs, adjust the insurance claim amount against the repair expenses, pay ₹98,000 as compensation, and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs to the complainant.
Case Title: Shubh Motors Private Limited v. Neeraj Gupta
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1216 of 2017