DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.237/2013
Shri Anshu Sood,
S/o Sh. T S Sood,
R/o M-17, Green Park Main,
New Delhi - 110016 ….Complainant
Versus
AAA Vehicleades P. Ltd.
F-189/1, Savitri Nagar,
Panchsheel- Malaviya Nagar Road,
New Delhi - 110017
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 22.04.2013
Date of Order : 08.03.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U. K. Tyagi
Briefly put, the Complaint is about the claim for refund the price of Rs.7,04,788/- of Swift Dzire VDI diesel car being defective car, to replace the aforesaid car and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony and harassment etc. for deficiency in service alongwith interest @24% p.a. on the above amount.
The Complainant purchased the aforesaid car on 05.05.2011 from authorised dealer M/s AAA Vehicle (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-I) which is manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-2). It is stated that during October-November-2011, the windshield of the said car developed spontaneous cracks. On the repeated request made by Complainant, the OP-1 got replaced the cracked windshield. Likewise, the windshield got replaced thrice and last time on 18.04.2013 in less than a period of two years. The Complainant states that this leads to a logical conclusion that he was sold a defective car by OP-1 and OP-2.
On the other hand, OP-1 has stated in its reply that the broken windshield was replaced without any charges. He has tried to deflect the issue with the help of job cards. That, the said vehicle was maintained in most callous and negligent manner resulting in cracks in windshield. Technically, it was tried to state that poor handling of air conditioning and parking of vehicle in sun, can result in cracks in windshield, due to difference in temperature which results in accumulation of extreme air pressure inside and same is to be vented out carefully, through windows. Further, it is added that since windshield having maximum surface area get affected first normally by this kind of accumulation of air pressure.
No deficiency of service has been alleged against OP-1. He stated that whenever the vehicle was brought for service, the Complainant was entirely satisfied. It was exhorted that the Complainant has not produced any expert report worth the name to prove technically the spontaneous cracks in the windshield. It is also alleged that in spite of having Delivery checklist, ‘Warranty Policy’ and User Manuals provided at the time of delivery of vehicle, the vehicle was not brought for 1st free inspection service at 1000 km or one month from the date of delivery. The same is evident from vehicle history that 1st Job Card was raised on 06.11.2011 after delay of 6 months at mileage of 2059 km. It is stated that the Complainant has not bothered to follow the guidelines of User Manual by neglecting the 1st, 2nd and 3rd free service as commanded in said manual in time frame of one year. It was also stated by the OP that the crack in windshield is not covered in the warranty policy.
OP-2 has also alleged that the Complainant being highly callous and negligent did not get the 1st and 2nd periodic maintenance schedule service in time as per warranty policy. The OP-2 states that the complaint is outside the scope and ambit of Section (2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act. No case is made out for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. It was stated by the OP-2 that the Apex Court in the matter of: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v/s Purusottam Lal (HUF) and Anr, the Hon’ble Apex Court held “before the consumer can get any remedy against the appellant from the For a set up under the Act, it must establish that there is some deficiency of service by the appellant. Both the concepts ‘deficiency’ and ‘services’ have been defined under Section 2(g) and 2(o) of the Act. After going though those definitions carefully, we do not find that the complaint for alleged non-delivery vis-à-vis the appellant is covered under Sections 2(g) and 2(o) of the Act”.
It was further submitted by OP-2 that vehicle manufactured by OP-2, undergo stringent quality control and get certified Final Check OK (FCOK) before invoicing to delivery destinations. The OP-2 being manufacturer, stands warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. The said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms and conditions as enumerated in Manual and Service booklet. The said problem is caused by the poor handling of said vehicle.
All the parties have filed written submissions and evidence by way of affidavits. Rejoinder by the Complainant is on record. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone through the materials placed before us carefully. As stated in above narrations, the cracks in the windshield of the aforesaid vehicle were developed within the short duration i.e. in the period of two years. The Complainant has squarely blamed that the said vehicle suffers from the manufacturing defects and accordingly demanded the claim as stated above in its complaint. He exhorted that since the windshield has been replaced thrice during the period of two year by OP-1, itself establishes that the said car has a manufacturing defect. The complainant has also referred to the case of Jose Philip Mampill vs Premier Automobiles and Anr AIR 2004 1529, the Apex Court has held that the manufacturer as well as the dealer are jointly liable, as it was the duty of dealer to have refused to deliver a defective car.
At the same time, the Complainant has not advanced any technical report to this effect that the said vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect. However, both the OPs have attracted our attention to the fact that technically, it is a common fact that due to poor handling of air-conditioning system, parking in sun and difference of temperature inside and outside in cars results in accumulation of extreme air pressure inside. In such circumstances, one had to be very careful in venting out the air pressures through windows. Since, the windshield normally covers maximum area, it is likely to get affected first in the above phenomenon of accumulation of extreme air pressures. This commission notes that no 3rd party inspection report or technical report has been filed with respect to defect in aforesaid vehicle. One may intend to go with the logic of accumulation of extreme air pressure. There may be possibility of high degree of coolness being generated by air conditioning. It is also true that this aspect was not examined by either of OPs. The Complainant has also not reported any kind of defects in any part including engine except cracks in windshield. It is also uncommon to have cracks repeatedly in less than two years.
In nutshell, it is evaluated that there has to be some defects either in cooling system or elsewhere which could not be explained by the OPs and they have not given any cogent reason for it. We find deficiency of service and negligence to the extent as reported by the Complainant and as discussed above. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- is granted to complainant for the deficiency in service and mental agony and physical harassment cumulatively. Also interest @ 6% p.a. is levied from the date of institution of the case in this Commission till realisation. It is also clarified that the manufacturer as well as dealer are jointly liable for the payment of compensation alongwith amount of interest within three months from date of receipt of the order failing which Rs.20,000/- shall be charged additionally. As regards to refund of Rs.7,04,788/- and replacement of alleged defective car, the same could not be proved to that extent by the Complainant, hence, this aspect of complaint is rejected. Hence, the Complainant is partly allowed.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.237/2013
Shri Anshu Sood
S/o Late T S Sood
R/o M-17, Green Park Main
New Delhi-110016.
….Complainant
Versus
M/s. AAA Vehicleades Private Limited
32, Sadhana Enclave
Malviya Nagar Road
New Delhi-110017.
Previously at:
F-189/1, Savitri Nagar
Panchsheel – Malviya Nagar Road
New Delhi-110017.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 22.04.2013 Date of Order : 13.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Rectification of the Judgment dated 8.3.2022
Shri Anshu Sood had filed a complaint in this Commission on 22.4.2013. The above-quoted complaint was disposed of vide judgment dated 8.3.2013. It was noticed that the complainant died on 19.5.2014. The unsigned application dated 14.8.2014 for impleading LRs of the complainant Shri Anshu Sood alongwith affidavits of LRs is found placed in the file. However, affidavits of the LRs (Heir) are signed and duly certified by Oath Commissioner. Application had also been recorded in the order sheet dated 14.8.14 by the members of this Forum, while passing this judgment in the matter, this application escaped the attention of this Court.
By invoking the power contained under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission rectifies the above order on the request of counsel for OP-1 vide its application dated 17.5.2022 to the extent of amending the memo of array of parties mentioned above. This order may be read as under:-
In continuation of earlier order dated 8.3.2022, the deceased - Shri Anshu Sood, the complainant is hereby substituted by his LRs as brought out on record vide application dated 14.8.2014.
Amended memo of parties
- Shri Anshu Sood (Deceased)
M-17, Green Park Main
New Delhi-110016.
Through
1 (a) Shri Kanak Sood S/o Late Shri Anshu Sood (LR of A Sood)
1 (b) Dr. Seema Sood
W/o Shri Anshu Sood
(Both residing at M-17, Green Park Main Delhi-110016).
Wherever, the complainant is appearing in the said judgment, the same may be read as “complainants”. The other contents of said judgment dated 8.3.2022 shall remain unchanged.
