STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 240 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 23.07.2012 | Date of Decision | | 01.11.2012 |
M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Registered Office at Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-10070, also at Plot No.1, Phase III-A, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. ……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1. Versus - Sh. Ashok Sobti son of Late Shri S.L. Sobti, resident of House No.3316, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh.
- Modern Automobiles having Office at Plot No.4, M.W. Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
- Berkeley Automobiles Ltd. having Office at Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
....Respondent(s) Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Parmod Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Vikas Jain, Advocate along with Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Sh. Aftab Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondent No.3. PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1, and directed it, as under:- “13. The Complainant having reasonably established a deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 by proving that the defect in the paint of the car was a manufacturing defect, thus, the present complaint, is allowed against Opposite Party No.1, and we direct Opposite Party No. 1 to take back the vehicle in question, and replace it, with a new one, of the same brand, make and specifications. In the alternative, if the Opposite Party No.1 has stopped the manufacture of the vehicle in question, then in that situation, the Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to refund the entire cost price of Rs.3,91,470/- to the Complainant, with an interest @9% per annum, from the date of its purchase, till it is actually paid. 14. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation on account of deficiency in service and having caused harassment to the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. 15. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of invoice price of the vehicle in question + the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded as compensation, from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 28.7.2011, till it is paid, besides costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.” However, the complaint qua the remaining Opposite Parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Wagon-R VXI from Opposite Party No.5 (the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1), on 12.01.2011, for sale consideration of Rs.3,91,470/- vide invoice No.0001548, dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure C-1). It was stated that within 2-3 weeks of its purchase, the complainant noticed small spots of blackish colour in the paint of the vehicle on bonnet and roof top. He brought this fact to the notice of Opposite Party No.6, when the vehicle was taken to its premises for first free service. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.6, did not mention the said defect on the job card, saying that the same would vanish after washing and Teflon coating of the paint and, as such, Opposite Party No.6 got a Teflon coating done, on 20.2.2011, on payment of Rs.1406/- by the complainant, but the problem subsisted. It was further stated that, in the months of March and April, 2011, the complainant made a complaint to Opposite Party No.1, through feed back letters, and requested it, to appoint some technical person to inspect the vehicle, in question, regarding the defect reported by him. It was further stated that, in the meanwhile, the small black spots started converting into big black spots/patches and the matter was again reported to Opposite Party No.5 on 23.6.2011, during 2nd free service, but it failed to mention the said defect, in the job card (Annexure C-2/A). However, it was told to the complainant, that such kind of defects can only be tackled by Opposite Party No.4, the Regional Service Head of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that on 24.6.2011, the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.4, who referred the matter to one Mr. J.L. Sachdeva, Incharge Body Shop of Opposite Party No.5. It was further stated that after inspection of the vehicle, Sh. Sachdeva explained the entire situation to Opposite Party No.4 over his telephone. It was further stated that the complainant requested Opposite Party No.5, to issue a job card, to this effect, but it refused to do so, and took a few photographs of the vehicle, in question, on the instructions of Opposite Party No.4. It was further stated that being apprehensive of some mischievous act, on the part of Opposite Party No.5, for not issuing the job card, demanded by him, the complainant also clicked a few photographs, with the help of his mobile, of Mr. J.L. Sachdeva and Mr. Jasbir, while they were inspecting the vehicle in question. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.4 advised the complainant to get the roof and the bonnet of his vehicle re-painted from Opposite Party No.5, for which the complainant never agreed. It was further stated that on 25.6.2011, the complainant received a call from Mr. J L Sachdeva of Opposite Party No.5, inviting him to get his vehicle inspected by an expert and accordingly, the vehicle was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.5 on 27.6.2011, where again, Opposite Party No.5 refused to issue the job card to this effect. It was further stated that while inspecting the vehicle, the said expert had also checked the density (DFT) of the paint and after inspection, he opined that the paint of the bonnet and roof was apparently defective. It was further stated that the complainant also contacted Opposite Party No.1, through e-mail and lodged complaints with it. It was further stated by the complainant that none of the Opposite Parties helped him in supplying the expert report, which according to him, is an unfair trade practice and concealment of true facts. It was further stated that despite numerous representations, made by the complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to elicit any response from their side. However, in an e-mail dated 12.7.2011, from the side of Opposite Party No.3, a vague reply was received, which claimed that the top coat paint of the vehicle of the Complainant got contaminated by some external factors. It was further stated that this was immediately objected to by the complainant, as the top paint of the vehicle was very much fine, whereas, it was due to the under coatings i.e. putty or primer below the surface of the paint, which was the main reason for the visibility of black patches through the light colour paint of the vehicle, in question. It was further stated that after receiving the rejection letter, dated 2.7.2011, the complainant sought a second opinion from a reputed dealer of passenger cars having expert team of painters and experts. It was further stated that the said dealer, physically inspected the vehicle, in question, and opined that the black coloured big spots/patches on the bonnet and roof of the vehicle, in question, were because of “MOTTLING AS ORIENTATION OF ALUMINUM PGIMENT GOT CHANGED BECAUSE OF APPLICATION WHILE DOING THE PAINT OR SOLVENT”. It was further stated that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in question, and Opposite Parties No.1 to 5 were running away from their responsibilities towards their customers, and delaying the matter intentionally, for the reasons best known to them. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, in their joint written version, while answering to the allegations of not registering the defect pointed out by the Complainant, in the job cards, stated that it was actually due to the reason that the Complainant did not raise this issue at that point of time. It was admitted that the alleged problem was reported at the workshop of Opposite Party No.6 at the time of obtaining running repairs on 20.2.2011, after the vehicle had covered 1090 Kms. It was further stated that the complainant concocted a false story about the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was denied that the alleged problem was inherent. It was further stated that the complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of Opposite Party No.5, for obtaining 2nd free service, on 23.6.2011, when the vehicle had covered 4297 Kms. It was further stated that he reported the alleged problem, alongwith the demanded repairs of scheduled service, which was noticed on the job slip and, as such, the allegations of the complainant of non-registering of his complaint, on the job card, was refuted. It was further stated that the cause of alleged problem was not attributed to manufacturing defect and the complainant was advised to get the repairs done as per the terms of warranty to which he flatly refused, and also threatened to file the present false and frivolous case against them. It was further stated that the alleged problem was due to external factors and not a case of manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the inspection carried out of the vehicle was correct, and that the specification of the paint measured through DFT was found within set parameters and standards. It was further stated that the complainant was also apprised on various occasions by expert advice of service engineers to remove his apprehensions. It was further stated that as many as 11 vehicles alongwith the Complainant’s vehicle were painted in a single batch, and, no paint defect was reported from any of these other vehicles. It was further stated that neither the quality, nor the expertise of the manufacturer could be questioned, as the Opposite Parties volunteered to address the problem, as per the warranty conditions, but the complainant refused to get the same repaired. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied. 4. Opposite party No.5 in its written statement stated that as per the warranty terms and conditions, the complainant was entitled only to warranty repairs rather than replacement of the vehicle. It was further stated that the experts of the manufacturer examined the vehicle and according to them, there was no manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, which was duly conveyed to the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicle, in question, was sent to the body shop by Mr. Vikas Saini, TSM of Opposite Party No.2, for checking the paint. It was further sated that the said vehicle was received in the body shop on 24.6.2011, where it was checked by the Painter and photographs [Annexure R-5/1 (Colly.)] of the painted surface were taken and mailed to Mr. Vikas Saini, TSM. It was further stated that the vehicle was also inspected by an Engineer Mr. Arshi from DuPont Paint Agency at the premises of Opposite Party No.5, and the entire paint surface i.e. the one alleged by the complainant, as well as the not affected surface too was observed. It was further stated that the readings of the DFT meter used during this inspection were e-mailed to Mr. Vikas Saini (Annexure R-5/2). It was stated that the report with regard to the thickness of the paint in micron units was found to be within permissible limits. It was further stated that the vehicle in question was absolutely in working condition, and perfect in all respects, as the same was inspected by the complainant, at the time of its delivery. 5. Opposite party No.6 in its written statement stated that the services rendered by it, were only to the extent of the Teflon coating and rubbing, which were got done by the complainant, on 20.2.2011, by paying a consideration amount of Rs.1,406/-. It was further stated that since, there were no allegations made against it, with regard to the services rendered by the answering Opposite Party, therefore, the complaint, against it deserved to be dismissed, with exemplary costs. 6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to above, in the opening para of the instant order. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, has filed the instant appeal. 9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No.1, Counsel for respondent No.2, Counsel for Respondent No.3, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) submitted that neither there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in question, nor the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is guilty of any deficiency in service. He further submitted that the relief regarding replacement of the vehicle or the refund of its price, as claimed by the complainant, is beyond the purview of the warranty agreement between the parties. He further submitted that the complainant is only entitled to free replacement of defective parts, if any, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Maruti Udyog Limited Versus Sushil Kumar Gabgotra & Others, 1 (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) and by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case Maruti Udyog Limited Versus Atul Bharadwaj & Others, 1 (2009) CPJ 270. He further submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from Respondent No.2 under a specific warranty agreement and the same was delivered in perfect OK and defect free condition, as per the terms of the warranty for the vehicle and the instructions contained in the owner’s manual provided to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle. He further submitted that the District Forum ignored the express terms of contract of warranty between the parties and raised presumption of inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in question. He further submitted that as regards the small spots of blackish colour, noticed by the complainant, in the paint of the vehicle on bonnet and roof top, Opposite Party No.6, advised the complainant that the same would vanish after washing and Teflon coating of the paint, which was got done on 20.2.2011. He further submitted that since the paint thickness (coating) on the bonnet and the roof of the vehicle, was found well within the normal range, by the Engineer from the paint manufacturer DuPont Pain, the District Forum wrongly ordered for either replacement of the vehicle or refund of its price. It was further submitted that the top coat paint of the vehicle of the Complainant got contaminated by some external factors. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the present appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that the order impugned, passed by the District Forum is based on true appreciation of documents/evidence placed on record by the parties, as also the report of DuPont Paint (Annexure R-5/2), as per which, there was variation in the thickness of the paint on the surface of the roof and the bonnet. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. The Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant referred to Annexures R-1/1 to R-1/7, mentioned in the affidavit of Sh. Vikas Saini, Territory Service Manager dated 05.12.2011, submitted by way of evidence alongwith the written statement of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4. However, the scrutiny of the District Forum’s record, revealed that these documents were not in existence therein. These documents were apparently misplaced by the concerned officials of the District Forum. These documents, in our considered view, are essential, for the just decision of the case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the case should be remanded back to the District Forum, for reconstructing the documents, and after going through the evidence, reconstructed documents, and other documents placed, on record, by both the parties, decide the complaint, afresh, in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is unsustainable, in the eyes of law. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is accepted with no order as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. The complaint is remanded back, to the District Forum, with a direction, to reconstruct the documents Annexures R-1/1 to R-1/7 and thereafter, decide the same, on merits, afresh, in accordance with law. 14. The parties are directed to appear, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 12-11-2012 at 10:30 A.M., for further proceedings. 15. The record of the District Forum alongwith certified copy of the order, passed in the appeal, be sent to it immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date fixed. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. November 1, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER AD
STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.240 of 2012) Argued by: Sh. Parmod Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Vikas Jain, Advocate along with Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1. Sh. Aftab Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondent No.3. Date: November 1, 2012. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been accepted with no order as to costs. The complaint case has been remanded back, to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh and the parties have been directed to appear before the said District Forum on 12-11-2012 at 10:30 A.M., for further proceedings. Sd/- Sd/- (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
