Maruti dealer failed to repair car for nearly 10 years; MP consumer panel upholds relief

NEW DELHI: The Madhya Pradesh state consumer commission has dismissed an appeal by a Maruti Suzuki dealer, upholding a district forum's decade-old order to compensate a customer whose accident-damaged car has remained stuck at the dealer's workshop for nearly 10 years.What was the issue?According to the commission's order, Neeraj Gupta's Maruti Ertiga met with an accident on April 1, 2016. He took it to Shubh Motors, an authorised Maruti dealer in Katni, Madhya Pradesh, the next day, and was assured repairs within 20 to 25 days. Despite several follow-ups and repeated extensions from the workshop, the repairs were never completed.Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the district consumer commission, Panna, which in January 2017 ordered the dealer to hand over the fully repaired car, allowing it to recover 50 per cent of the engine repair cost (estimated at Rs 72,500) plus other repair expenses from the complainant, adjust any insurance payout already received, and pay him Rs 98,000 as compensation along with Rs 3,000 in litigation costs.The dealer challenged this order before the state commission, arguing that the district forum had wrongly relied on an unauthenticated audio recording in violation of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, that the delay wasn't a deficiency since repairs began only after a survey, and that there was no rule requiring the engine to be opened in the customer's presence. It further argued that part of the Rs 98,000 compensation was for the complainant's claimed loss of attending the Simhastha and a family wedding, for which no tickets or documents were produced.

The complainant's counsel countered that job cards on record proved the repair work was due, that the dealer had assured him the engine would be opened only in his presence but opened it without him, and that no final repair bill was ever produced despite the dealer claiming the car was ready. The counsel added that the complainant had bought the car to run as a taxi for his livelihood, but it has sat at the dealer's showroom for close to 11 years, and he can't even get it registered at this stage.What did the commission say?The bench comprising Justice Sunita Yadav (President) and Dr Monika Malik (Member) noted that the dealer gave no rebuttal to the claim that it had promised to open the engine only in the complainant's presence. It also found nothing on record to show the car had actually been repaired."There is no evidence, either in the record of the district commission or this appeal which could prove that the subject vehicle was repaired by the opposite party /appellant despite there being submission at their end that the vehicle has been repaired," the commission held.The commission noted the dealer had not shown any communication to the complainant confirming the car was repaired and ready for delivery, which could have backed its claim.The commission pointed out that while two job cards existed and the engine repair was estimated at Rs 72,500, the dealer had produced only one bill for Rs 70,228, with no breakup showing how much had come from the insurance survey. Even a decade after the accident, it said, "there is no clarity" on the actual repair status or who owes what.Holding that the district commission "has not committed any error or illegality" in its order, the state commission dismissed the dealer's appeal, with no additional costs awarded. It held that the district forum had rightly compensated Gupta given the deficiency in service on the dealer's part.