NCDRC Concludes 11-Year Maruti Alto Dispute, Labels It 'Exercise in Futility'
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has recently brought closure to a consumer case that had been pending for over 11 years, stemming from a dispute over a Maruti Alto car purchased in 2012. In a stark assessment, the commission described the protracted legal battle as "an exercise in futility," highlighting the inefficiencies in the system and the lack of benefit to either party involved.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated on July 25, 2012, when a consumer purchased a Maruti Alto LX BS-IV from M/s Modern Automobiles, an authorized dealer in Chandigarh. At the time of sale, a Form-21 sale certificate was issued, indicating the vehicle was manufactured in November 2011. However, the consumer later claimed to have believed the car was a 2012 model, leading to confusion and allegations of misrepresentation when attempting to register the vehicle.
In response, the dealer issued a second Form-21 certificate showing the manufacture date as March 2012, based on an invoice from Maruti Suzuki India Limited. This discrepancy sparked a series of legal actions, with the consumer filing a complaint in 2013. The district consumer commission initially ordered the dealer to register the vehicle at its own expense and pay compensation, but both parties appealed, escalating the matter to higher courts.
NCDRC's Ruling and Observations
A bench comprising President Justice A P Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya heard the revision petition filed by the automobile dealer, challenging a 2014 order. In its ruling on January 27, the NCDRC lamented the "working system" that allowed such a case to drag on for over a decade. The commission noted that the vehicle had remained with the consumer throughout the proceedings, running only 2,000 km, and was now in an unusable condition due to its age.
Key points from the NCDRC's decision include:
- The dispute was not about manufacturing defects or service deficiencies but centered on the consumer's inability to register the vehicle due to unclear information about its year of manufacture.
- After 15 years, it was deemed just to reduce the dealer's liability and compensate the consumer partially, given the prolonged litigation and the vehicle's expired life under current motor vehicle laws.
- The commission directed that Rs 2.43 lakh deposited during the proceedings, along with accrued interest, be released equally to the dealer and the consumer.
- Restoring the district commission's order was considered futile, as the vehicle's age and the lengthy legal process rendered any replacement or registration efforts impractical.
Impact and Broader Implications
The NCDRC emphasized that neither the consumer nor the dealer benefited from the possession of the vehicle over these years. The consumer was unable to enjoy ownership due to lack of valid registration, while the dealer faced prolonged legal hassles. The commission criticized both parties for filing appeals without justification, as there was no evidence of manufacturing defects or service deficiencies.
This case underscores the challenges in consumer dispute resolution systems, where prolonged litigation can lead to outcomes that serve little practical purpose. The NCDRC's call for expediency and fairness in such matters highlights the need for more efficient legal processes to prevent similar "exercises in futility" in the future.
In conclusion, the NCDRC's disposal of this 11-year-old case serves as a cautionary tale for consumers and businesses alike, urging them to seek timely resolutions and avoid unnecessary legal entanglements that ultimately benefit no one.
