Haryana

Sonipat

136/2014

RAMESH KUMAR S/O KANWAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.JAGMOHAN MOTOR LTD.,2. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUDESH KUMAR

15 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.136 of 2014

                             Instituted on:16.05.2014

                             Date of order:06.05.2015

 

Ramesh Kumar son of Kanwal Singh, resident of village Sohti tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1.Jag Mohan Motors Ltd.,(Maruti Authorized dealer) through its Director/Branch Manager, Branch office, Delhi road, Sonepat.

2.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., through its Prop. Palam Gurgaon road, Gurgaon.

                                       ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Ms. Sudesh Panghal, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Sanjay Kankarwal, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Adv. for Respt no.2.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

          D.V. Rathi, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he purchased new Ritz car on 2.7.2013 from respondent no.1 for Rs.5,51,300/-. When the complainant used the said vehicle for 2-3 K.M. the said vehicle automatically stopped.  When the mechanic of the company opened the Tanki and removed the fault of the vehicle.  After three months, the turbo of the vehicle burnt automatically.  The same was changed, but the respondent charged Rs.8225/- from the complainant.   The engine oil of the vehicle has been finished after 16000 km. The same was changed, for which, the respondent charged Rs.6600/- from the complainant.  The complainant also made a complaint regarding the fault in the engine.  The complainant requested the respondent for replacement of the engine.  But the respondent illegally and without any receipt charged Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

         The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that all the allegations as alleged by the complainant against the respondent no.1 are altogether wrong and false.  Infact the vehicle of the complainant has met with an accident twice which is clear from the vehicle history of the vehicle. Whatever the amount has been charged from the complainant, the same has been rightly charged by the respondent no.1. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble Forum.  According to history of the vehicle, on 9.4.2014, the vehicle of the complainant came in an accidental and damaged condition and after examination, it was observed that the engine may be effected in that accident.   The complainant again visited the service centre of the respondent no.1 on 24.4.2014 for general check up and paid service of the vehicle and after inspecting the vehicle, there was minor fault bound in PSTINPIN, Ring, All+oil PMP ASY-DSL R&R in the engine, which were removed by the respondent no.1 free of costs under warranty. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.7675/- for general check up and paid service and intercooler cleaning.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint alleging false allegations against the respondents with ulterior motive.   The complainant has sent the vehicle on 1.10.2013 for accidental repairs.  The respondent no.1 carried out the accidental jobs including denting and painting and replaced front bumper on paid basis.   The complainant did not point out any defect in the vehicle which could affect the performance of engine in any manner. The turbo charger assembly of the complainant’s vehicle was changed free of charge under warranty.   The complainant is liable to pay for the items which were changed at the time of 3^rd service on 23.10.2013. The complainant has no right to claim replacement of engine at his whims and fancy and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

3.       Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 while relying on their written statements and documents, have argued their case that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and thus, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as has been sought by him by way of present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as whenever the complainant made any complaint with regard to any problem, the same was attended properly and was removed at the earliest possible. The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint only to harass & humiliate the respondents for the reasons best known to him.  The sole motive of the complainant to get replaced the engine of his vehicle or to get refund of the cost of the vehicle from the respondents by filing false complaint alleging false and frivolous allegations therein against the respondents.  But this cannot be allowed and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the vehicle is running in perfect O.K. condition.

         On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has argued while relying on the pleadings of the complaint and the documents attached with the complaint that there is manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle and thus, the same needs to be replaced with new one. The engine oil of the vehicle has been finished after 16000 km. The same was changed, for which, the respondent charged Rs.6600/- from the complainant.  The complainant also made a complaint regarding the fault in the engine.  The complainant requested the respondent for replacement of the engine, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the entire documents & evidence led by both the parties in support of their case, the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief and if so, to what relief.

         We have perused the evidence led by the complainant very carefully and has come to the conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove that the engine of the vehicle was defective due to having manufacturing defect and for the removal of the said defect, the complainant was in constant touch with the respondents.

         In the case in hand, the complainant purchased the car on 02.07.2013 and as per job card Ex.C6, he visited to the respondent no.1 on 23.10.2013 with the complaint of Poor Pick Up. In our view, poor pick up of the vehicle within three months can only be due to manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle. It is proved that the piston of the vehicle were changed.  The plea of the respondents that the performance of the vehicle has been effected due to accident.  But this plea of the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law because the respondent no.1 carried out the accidental jobs including denting and painting and replaced front bumper on paid basis and there is no nexus between the accidental jobs and the defects developed in the engine of the vehicle due to manufacturing defects.  The respondents have not led any evidence which may go to prove that the accident of the vehicle has effected the engine of the vehicle  in any manner.

         So, after going through the entire relevant records available on record and evidence led by both the parties, we are of the view that there is a manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle and due to this, the car was consuming more engine oil in comparison to the standard specification of the company.  There was also poor pick up of the vehicle and moreover piston of the vehicle was also changed. In our view, the replacement of the engine of the vehicle with new engine is fully justified and the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents to replace the defective engine of the vehicle of the complainant with new engine.  As per pleadings of the respondent no.1 in his written statement, the vehicle is lying in the premises of the respondent no.1. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to replace the defective engine of the vehicle of the complainant with new engine within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, after expiry of statutory period of filing the appeal, the complainant will become entitled to charge Rs.200/- (Rs.two hundred) per day from the respondents till replacement of the defective engine of the vehicle.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi)                (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF     Member DCDRF              DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:06.05.2015