K K Singh vs ARUNABHA ROY

-COMPLAINANT is appellant. He has challenged impugned judgment dated 21. 1. 2008, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi dismissed his Consumer Complaint No. 210 of 2006.

THE complainant purchased a Alto Standard Car manufactured by Maruti Udyog Limited from its authorised dealer M/s. Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. , Ranchi, which was registered as JH-01-J-9594. On 12. 3. 2006 the complainant parked his car and went inside Kali Mandir at Daltonganj for Puja. Another Alto LX Car was also parked there. When he came out, he saw that a person, who was owner of Alto LX Car, was opening the lock of his car. Key numbers of both the cars were the same. A complaint was made to the authorised dealer in this regard and legal notice was also sent for the same, but no reply was received.

In such situation the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 210 of 2006, under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for payment of Rs. four lacs (Rs. 2,38,752. 00 minus the cost of the vehicle plus Rs. 1,61,248. 00 as compensation for mental agony, breach of trust including cost of litigation ).

THE Regional Manager of Maruti Udyog Limited filed objection for him being impleaded in individual capacity. According to him, the complaint was bad for non-rejoinder and mis-joinder of parties as MUL, who was manufacturer of the car in question, was not impleaded. On merit of complaint, it was pleaded by the said Regional Manager of MUL that international standard was being followed so far as rotations of keys were concerned in manufacturing millions of vehicles. It was beyond imagination to have different types of keys for each and every vehicle. It was merely a co-incident that two cars parked side by side had the same type of key. The complainant was offered another lock set with a different key number.

UNDER Clause 3. 5 of the brochure of the manufacturer-MUL "key" means "any device designed and constructed to provide a method of operating a locking system, which is designed and constructed to be operated only by that device". It is mentioned in Clause 5. 6 of the said brochure that mechanical locking system shall provide at least 1,000 different key combinations or a number equal to the total number of vehicles manufactured annually, if less than 1,000. Frequency of occurrence of each combination shall be roughly one per one thousand. The District Consumer Forum, disposed of the complaint with a direction to the opposite parties to offer a new key and lock to the complainant, which the complainant is required to accept. On 17. 3. 2008, the complainant-appellant filed a petition for leave to implead MUL as party-respondent. By order dated 18. 3. 2008, show cause notice was issued to MUL in this regard. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. appeared on aforesaid notice and filed a rejoinder/show cause to the petition dated 17. 3. 2008. However, by order dated 26. 5. 2008, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. was added as respondent No. 3.

COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that same key has been given in the same city by the same agency within two years and, therefore, a customer can''t be assured with regard to safety of the vehicle.

IT has been submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that Maruti Udyog Limited uses the components in its vehicle as per Automotive Industries Standard. In terms of Clause 5. 6 of Part I of the Automotive Industries Standard 2006, every vehicle manufacturer has to provide at least 1,000 different key combinations or a number equal to the total number of vehicles manufactured annually if less than one thousand. In vehicles of one type (i. e. , models and variants using the same device) the frequency of occurrence of each combination shall be roughly one per 1,000. It has further been submitted that Maruti Udyog Limited uses 1,500 different key combinations, which is 500 more than the above directive. There is no deficiency in service on their part in this matter. The respondents are ready to replace the lock and key of the vehicle free of cost through the authorised dealer. A registered letter dated 14. 2. 2008 was sent to the appellant to get the lock set replaced free of cost, which was duly received by him on 19. 2. 2008.

In the aforesaid circumstance, we find no merit in this appeal and there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned judgment.

IN the result the appeal is dismissed, but without costs. Appeal dismissed.