| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.395/2014 Akshat Katiyar R/o-J-50, IIND Floor, Old Duble Story, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi-110024 ….Complainant Versus AAA Vehicleades Pvt Ltd. F-1/189, Savitri Nagar, Panchsheel-Malviya Nagar Road, New Delhi-110001 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 1, Nelson Mandela Road. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110010 ….Opposite Parties Date of Institution : 15.10.2014 Date of Order : 12.01.2023 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking replacement of Maruti Celerio ZX I and an amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and mental harassment caused to the complaint and Rs. 25,000/- as legal costs. OP 1is AAA Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. and OP 2 is Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - It is the case of the complaint that he purchased a Maruti Suzuki XI bearing vehicle no. MA 3 ETDE 1 S 00104385 with engine no. 7321864 chassis no. 104385 having registration number DL 03 CCA 3342 from the showroom of the OP 1.
- It is stated by the complainant that at the time of delivery of the car he had deposited an amount of Rs.1,200/- for the purpose of car cover however at that time he was told that the cover was not available and as and when it would be available he would be called. The car cover was finally given to the complainant after putting him to long hardship.
- It is further stated by the complainant that he gave his car for its first service at the workshop of OP 1on 04.05.2014 and informed them about issues or problems that he was facing in the car. The issues related to alignment of the car, air conditioner, pick up of the car, rubber on the windscreen, consumption of too much of petrol and mileage being very poor.
- It is stated by the complainant that none of these were dealt with by the OP 1and the car was cleaned and polished. It was noticed by the complainant that a new pair of head lamps was missing and the same was communicated to OP1 and it was only after a heated discussion that the headlamps were provided to the complaint at that time when the car went for the second time.
- It is stated that the complainant wrote to the OP 1vide email dated 17.05.2014 expressing his disappointment and the same is attached as annexure C. In response, the complainant was assured that this would not happen again.
- The complainant had again got his car checked at the workshop of OP 1 on 22.05.2014 for the complaints relating to air conditioner, loose rubber in windshield glass along with the previous raised issues which remained unresolved, the copy of the service report is attached as annexure E and thereafter on 09.06.2014 similar complaint was made relating to issues like vibrating sound of AC, no sensitivity in power steering, sound coming from our body and dashboard, high consumption of petrol, smell of petrol when the doors get opened, body lining getting damaged after collision and rubber of windscreen being misaligned.
- The car was again sent to the service centre on 27.06.2014 but the issues were not resolved and in this regard, an email was written on 01.07.2014 which is attached as annexure G. Similar complaints were made however, OP 1 did not take the issue seriously due to which the complaint had to face lot of inconvenience and mental harassment.
- It is stated by the complainant that the car delivered to him was not a new one and was full of defects, when he repeatedly made complaints about the same it was not resolved. On account of these issues being unresolved, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
- Per Contra, OP 1 in it's reply has taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is fully misconceived, vexatious, misleading unsustainable, false, frivolous and is an abuse of the process of law. It is stated that it is liable to be dismissed because no cause of action has accrued against OP 1 and they have always rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant which cannot be termed as deficiency in service. It is stated that the complaint has been filed with the ulterior motive of extracting money from OP 1whereas OP 1has performed its duty well by providing quality after sales service. It is further stated that the role of OP 1is limited only to servicing and repairing of the vehicle when brought to the workshop of the OP 1.
- It is stated by OP 1 that after 20-25 days of taking the delivery of the car and after repeated reminders from OP 1, the complainant brought the car for first free service which is one of the principles to maintain the warranty conditions which was finally done on 04.05.2014. It is stated by OP 1that at that time, the car had already travelled 1166 kilometres and there was no problem reported by the complainant to OP 1. First free service and anti-rust coating was provided by OP 1to protect the under body of the car. The car was picked up by complainant upon being satisfied with all the services provided and on inquiry from the complainant after the service, compliance, feedback was found satisfactory and there were no complaints whatsoever as alleged by the complainant.
- It is stated by the OP 1 that on 22.05.2015, the complainant brought his car to OP 1’s workshop with complaints of noise from air conditioner, loose rubber in front of windshield glass and wheel alignment which was checked and was found to be alright and the car was picked up by the complainant only after being satisfied. At that time, the mileage of the car was 2232 kilometres.
- It is stated that the complainant got the car once again to OP 1’s workshop on 27.06.2014 informing about noise from front air conditioner, hard steering, loose rubber on front windshield and misaligned front Fender. The windshield rubber was changed at the cost of OP 1, front Fender was aligned, steering was checked and serviced and at the time of the delivery of the vehicle, the complainant drove the car at a high speed and found everything normal and took the delivery of the car.
- OP1 has denied the allegation regarding the purchase of car cover. It is further stated by OP 1that complainant took the car after the first service and it was only after 12 days that he registered an email expressing his alleged dissatisfaction with the service of the car and just to make a false case against OP 1, an email was sent by the complainant on 09.06.2014 alleging the issues and problem with the car however, the car was picked up after service by the complainant only being completely satisfied and test driving the vehicle. It is further stated that it was only on account of collision that the mileage had gone down and the vehicle had started to make noise from different sides and the allegations of the manufacturing defect in the car are false.
- It is further denied by OP 1 that the car delivered to the complainant was not a new one or was full of defects or that any of the accessories was missing from the car.
- OP 2i.e the manufacturer, in their reply has stated that the complaint is without any cause against them as their liabilityis limited to obligations under warranty as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The vehicle in question is defect free and is in perfect OK condition
- It is stated that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non- joinder proper and necessary party, complainant has not impleaded M/s Competent Motors Automobiles from where the complainant obtained second free inspection service and did not report any problem in the vehicle. It is stated that on 15.09.2014, the vehicle was driven for 5432 kilometres and the complainant did not report any problem or abnormality in the vehicle. Normal service as per periodic maintenance schedule was carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant.
- It is stated that the complainant has failed to disclose any specific cause of action against OP 2 and that OP 2 has discharged its warranty, obligations and has never denied any warranty benefits which the complainant is rightly entitled to. It is stated that the complainant has failed to set out any case for compensation as he himself is quite negligent and careless. Proper maintenance of the vehicle in question as provided for in warranty exclusion clause 4(8) and (9) is required. It is stated that the vehicle met with an accident on 02.02.2015 and the front portion of the vehicle got damaged and the complainant has concealed this material fact from the Commission.
- It is further stated by OP 2 that they sell the products to its dealers and the relationship between OP 2 and OP1 is principal to principal basis and therefore OP2 cannot be liable for the acts of the OP1 and the warranty provided to the customer is limited as per the warranty agreement. It is stated that when the vehicle was provided to the complainant, the vehicle in question was FCOK and PDI certified vehicle, free from defects at the time of sale. It is further stated that at the time of first service there was no alleged problem or abnormality in the performance of the vehicle when it was driven for 1166 kilometres.
- It stated that as far as the mileage of the vehicle is concerned, it depends on several factors which includes driving habits, gear change pattern, usage of AC, air pressure of the tyres, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance of vehicle, road conditions, AC and the fuel efficiency improves after run in period and stabilizes after 3000 kilometres.
- It is further submitted that when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP 1to 20.05.2014, it was inspected in presence of the complainant and no problem or abnormality was observed. Rubber of the front screen was adjusted to satisfy his apprehension and AC noise, wheel alignment were found OK and the vehicle was taken away by the complainant after his satisfaction without any protest or demur.
- It is stated that the complainant has been negligent and careless in proper maintenance of the vehicle and had collision of the vehicle wherein the vehicle got damaged from the front side and now has filed the alleged complaint just to get undue enrichment. It is stated when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP 1 on 27.06.2014 at 2729 kilometres, the vehicle was thoroughly inspected in presence of the complainant and it was found to be OK and defect free and the said remarks find mention on the job card which was duly acknowledged by the complainant. Similarly, when the vehicle was brought on 01.07.2014, the vehicle was inspected extensively, road tested in presence of the complainant and was found to be as per set standards.
- It is stated by the OP that the complainant did not send the vehicle for obtaining 3rd free inspection service which ought to have been obtained at the completion of 10,000 kilometres or 12 months whichever occurs first from the date of purchase. It is also stated that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 02.02.2015 causing severe damage to the front portion of the vehicle and therefore it is denied that the vehicle was full of defects and in fact, the complainant is making purposeful use of the vehicle in question.
Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant and is a denial of the allegations made by OP 1 in their written submissions. Evidence affidavit and written submissions have been filed by the parties. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. It is seen that the complainant apart from emails have not filed any record of the job cards of the car. The said job cards have been filed by OP2 on record and it is seen from the said job cards that the complaint did face some issues in his car however, the same were resolved and the car was collected by the complainant after satisfaction of most complaints. The job card dated 27.06.2014 is clear in this regard wherein the complainant has stated that delivery of car is taken but the complainant was not totally satisfied with the sound emanating from AC but no other complaint has been written. It is also observed that both OP 1 and 2 have complained that the complainant did not bring the car in time for free service yet this Commission is of the view this cannot be a criteria in sound coming from the AC. Secondly, both the OPs state that the car of the complainant met with an accident in 2015 but as is seen from the record this complaint pertains to 2014 therefore, the accident is not related to the complaints made. It is also seen that the complainant has not placed on record any report or expert evidence to show that the car suffered from manufacturing defect. Therefore, we are of the view that the justice would be done by compensating the complainant for sound in his AC as rest of the complaints pertaining to the car were resolved and acknowledged by the complainant. It is also seen that the complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to prove manufacturing defect in the car. OP 1 and 2 are therefore directed to compensate the complainant for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each within two months from the date of service of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay interest @5 % from the date of the order till realization. File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website. | |
