::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.67/2017.
Date of filing: 07.10.2017.
Date of disposal: 31.10.2023.
P R E S E N Ts:-
(1) Shri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi, B.Com.,LL.B.,(Spl.),
President.,
(2) Kum. Kavita,
M.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.),
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S Shah Ibrahim Quadri S/o Shah Quadri
Pasha died through LR
1. Shah Hashir Abdulla Quadari
S/o Late Shah Ibrahim Quadri,
Age:19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o 5-2-210, Golekhana Bidar.
2. Rajumand Batool W/o Late Shah
Ibrahim Quadri,
Age:42 years, Occ:Household, R/o Bidar.
3. Khansa Tarannum D/o Late Shah
Ibrahim Quadri,
Age:21 years, Occ:Household, R/o Bidar.
4. Shahira Aammeena D/o Late Shah
Ibrahim Quadri,
Age:20 years, Occ:Student, R/o Bidar.
5. Umama Tahen minor U/g of mother
Rajumand Batool,
All R/o H.No.5-2-210, Golekhana Bidar.
(By Sri.S.B.Wadde., Advocate)
V/s
- Automotive Manufactures Pvt. Ltd., Maruti Suzuki, (Authorised Maruti Suzuki Dealer and Service Centre) Survey No.28, 29 & 30 service next to Govt. Womens polytechnic college, Barshi road, Latur-413531.
- Lahoti Motors, Pratapnagar, Bidar.
- Lahoti Motors,Lahoti Garden,Near KMF dairy Gulbarga.
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015.
(By OP.No.1&4 Smt.Padma M. and
OP No.2 & 3 Arunkumar., Advocate).
:: J U D G M E N T ::
By Shri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi, President.
The complaint is filed by the complainant U/sec.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the Ops for the deficiency of service and seeking relief of replacement of new vehicle from the Ops.
Brief facts of the complaint.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
2. The complainant has purchased Ertiga Car bearing its Reg.No.KA.38/M-4095 for Rs.10,77,000/- from OP No.1 to 3 on 29.07.2015. The OP No.1 to 3 are inter connected with the sale of vehicles of Maruti Suzuki Brand and they are also inter linked with repairs, insurance, claim etc, OP No.4 is the Manufacturing Company Unit. The complainant opted for service job work at OP No.2 and 3. The complainant has paid taxes, insurance, premiums, registration charges pertaining to the car. The complainant found consecutive repairs for the above said new vehicle for 3 to 4 occasion at OP No.1 to 3 workshop and it is revealed that there was engine defect having inherent defects due to which the complainant was made to pay charges levied by OP No.1 to 3 on each occasion for repairs. Now the vehicle is lying idle at OP No.1 shop at Latur, the bills are estimated for Rs.2,00,000/- and more. The complainant paid repair charges despite of free service offered by the Ops. The complainant has suffered inconveniences and monetary loss caused due to the deficiency in service by the Ops. The vehicle is having inherent defects in the engine and it is not usable, hence the complainant prayed to replace new vehicle Ertiga by taking back the defective vehicle which was lying in OP No.1 workshop and with cost and compensation from the Ops.
Written version of OP No.1.
3. The commission issued notice of the complaint to the Ops and they appeared before this commission through their counsel and OP No.1 filed his written version the contents of which are as here under.
The OP No.1 is Auto Motive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd Latur, the complaint filed by the complainant is merely an attempt to tarnish the image of the Ops in the market and extort money. The purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant from the OPs is not disputed. The complainant filed this complaint after lapse of 02 years and 03 months and which is not within the limitation. The complainant has ever since been in possession of the car has utilised to its best and used the car for a total distance of 60,719Kms, after enjoying the car for a period of 02 years and 03 months is now seeking for replacement of car, which is totally baseless. The term of the warranty covers the car up to 40,000Kms, but in the instance case as on 27.08.2017, the car of complainant has covered total distance of 60,719Kms. And hence, the complainant is ineligible to invoke the clauses of the warranty policy. The complainant availed the 3rd free service on 13.11.2015, and the car had run at a distance of 10,785Kms and no complaints regarding the efficiency of the car. However on 28.02.2017 the complainant approached OP No.3 and sought for body repairs of the car in view of an accident and availed insurance for the repairs. Again pursuant to the 2nd accident on 21.07.2017 the car covered the distance of 54,651Kms the engine overheating and noise in the engine was sought to be repaired. A service estimate of Rs.2,08,641/- was tendered to the complainant in view of the damages caused to the car by the accident and the recklessness with which the car had been handled. There is no cause of action against the Ops. As per the history of the complainants car recorded in DMS by OP No.2 and 3 the car was driven with kerosene mix fuel and in overheated condition. Hence, OP No.1 prayed to reject the complaint.
Written version of OP No.2 and 3.
4. The OP No.2 submits that he is an authorised dealer and service provider of the OP No.4 Company and OP No.2 is having its branch at Bidar. The complainant has run his vehicle for more than 60,719Kms as on the date of 23.08.2017 and further instead of pouring diesel he has used the kerosene as mixture to the suggested standard diesel and hence, due to negligence on the part of complainant the OP No.2 and 3 are not liable for the acts of the complainant and this OPs prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Written version of OP No.4.
5. The OP No.4 contended that the term of warranty covers the car up to 40,000Kms but in the instance case, as on 27.08.2017, the car has covered a total distance of 60,719Kms. Hence, the complainant is ineligible to claim the warranty policy. The complainant has subjected the Car to various accidents and warranty policy mandates that, the vehicle must not have met with any accident, thus rendering the complainant in eligible to claim against OPs. The OP No.4 is not necessary party. The complainant has used the car in a reckless manner. After 3rd service on 13.11.2015 he did not raised any complaints regarding the efficiency of the car. However, on 28.02.2017 the complainant approached OP No.3 and sought for body repairs of the car in view of accident and for that repairs he has availed insurance. In pursuance to the repairs due to the accident the complainant returned on 02.06.2017, to the service station with certain complaints and the car was thereafter serviced. However, on 06.07.2017, the complainant again approached OP No.2 and 3 and sought for repair of the car caused due to an accident. The car was delivered at service station on 06.07.2017 with major dents and scratches and again the complainant availed insurance for the works. There is no any defects in the engine of the car as alleged by the complainant but, the car has been damaged due to 02 accidents. During the 1st, 2nd and 3rd free service of the car there were no complaints raised by the complainant. The complainant pursuant to the accidents on 27.08.2017 has dropped off the car at service and has in order to evade payment of the repair charges has conveniently approached this Hon’ble Court. And hence prayed to dismiss the compliant.
Evidence of Complainant.
6. The complainant Sri.Shah Ibrahim Khadri S/o Shah Khadri Pasha died during the course of trial of this case and his LRs were brought on record, among them one Sri.Shah Hashil Abdulla Khadri S/o Late Shah Ibrahim Khadri has been examined as P.W.1 on behalf of complainants, by filing evidence affidavit and got marked in all 11 documents, as per Ex.P.1. to Ex.P.11. i.e.,
1. Ex.P.1 &2-Copy of service estimate dt:27.08.2017.
2. Ex.P.3-Job slip issued by Lahoti Motors Pvt.Ltd.,
Gulbarga dt:21.07.2017.
3. Ex.P.4-Accident repair job slip sheet issued by Lahoti
Motors dt:06.07.2017.
4. Ex.P.5-Job slip issued by Lahoti Motors Pvt.Ltd.,
Gulbarga dt:22.02.2016.
5. Ex.P.6-Accident repair job slip sheet issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt.Ltd., Gulbarga dt:28.02.2017.
6. Ex.P.7-Job Card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors dt:20.03.2017.
7. Ex.P.8-Job card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt. Ltd. dt:20.03.2017.
8. Ex.P.9-Job card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt. Ltd. dt:02.06.2017.
9. Ex.P.10-Job slip issued by auto motive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.
dt:23.09.2017.
10. Ex.P.11-Copy of Aadhar Card pertaining to deceased complainant.
Evidence of Ops.
7. One Sri Sanjay Vasanthrao Dojode, Deputy General Manager Auto Motive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Latur has been examined on behalf of OP No.1 as R.W.1, One Sri. Sidramesh S/o Manikrao Works Manager has been examined on behalf of OP No.2 & OP No.3 as R.W.2, One Sri.Ramanjayneyaru Ummidi S/o Sh.U V V Satyanarayana has been examined on behalf of OP No.4 as R.W.3 and got marked 09 documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9. i.e.,
1. Ex.R.1-Copy of certificate issued by Auto Motive
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., dt:28.12.2017.
2. Ex.R.2-Copy of vehicle history issued by Auto Motive
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Latur dt:23.08.2017(8 pages).
3. Ex.R.3-Copy of mail communication to the customer from OP
No.1 (3 pages).
4. Ex.R.4-Copy of Job Card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt.Ltd. dt:14.06.2016.
5. Ex.R.5- Copy of Job Card retail cash memo issued by OP No.2
dt:18.01.2017.
6. Ex.R.6-Copy of pre-invoice issued by OP No.2 dt:05.08.2017.
7. Ex.R.7-Copy of vehicle history issued by OP No.1
dt:23.08.2017.
8. Ex.R.8-Copy of vehicle history issued by OP No.2
dt:18.01.2017.
9. Ex.R.9-Copy of vehicle history issued by OP No.2
dt:14.06.2016.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by both side counsels. From the pleadings and documents from both the parties the points that arose for our consideration are as below;
- Whether the complainants prove that, they are consumers to the Ops and further prove the deficiency of service from the Ops?
- Whether the complainants prove that they are entitled for any relief as sought in their complaint?
- If so what orders?
9. Our answers to the points raised above are as follows: -
- In the Negative.
- In the Negative.
- As per final order.
POINT No. 1 and 2.
10. The above said points No.1 and 2 in this case are having inter related subject matter, hence point 1 and 2 discussed together for convenience. The complainant and OP have filed their respective evidence affidavit as per P.W.1 and R.W.1 to R.W.3 and reiterated the facts of their respective pleadings in their evidence affidavit. The complainant got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 documents to establish their case. The Ops also examined R.W.1 to R.W.3 and got marked documents Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9 to establish their case. The case of the complainant that, he had purchased a Ertiga Car of Maruti Suzuki at OP No.1 Showroom bearing its Reg.No.KA.38/M/4095 on 29.07.2015, for total of Rs.10,77,000/-. The complainant has found consecutive repairs for the above said vehicle for 3 to 4 occasions and repaired at OP No.1 to 3 work shop and revealed that, there was engine defect, the engine fitted by the manufacturing company is having in herrent defects and made the complainant to pay charges levied by OP No.1 to 3 for each and every occasion of repairs. Now the vehicle is lying idle at OP No.1 and the bill estimated for them is more than Rs.2,00,000/- for the repairs of the said car. The complainant sustained much loss due to engine defect in the vehicle. To substantiate the above fact the complainant has produced Ex.P.1 the service estimate details dt:27.08.2017 for Rs.2,08,641.50 paisa issued by OP No.1. Ex.P.2 is also the approval certificate by surveyor of the said company for Ex.P.1 estimation. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.10 are the job slip sheets issued by OP No.3, Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 are the job card retail cash memo issued by OP No.3 dt:20.03.2017 and 02.06.2017. Ex.P.11 is the copy of Aadhar card pertaining to deceased complainant.
11. The OPs contended in their W.V. that, the complainant has not complained about the engine defects till 3rd free service of the above said vehicle. The Ops found that, the complainant has utilized car for a total distance of 60,719KM for a period of 2 years 3 months and now the complainant claim that the engine is having inherent defects which is not tenable under law. The warranty period covers up to 40,000KM, but the said vehicle as on the date of 27.08.2017 covers total distance of 60,719KM. Hence, the complainant is ineligible to invoke the clause of warranty policy. The OPs have further contended that, the Car was driven by the complainant with Kerosene Mixed Fuel and overheated condition. So, the OP No.1 had calculated the approximate cost of repair was estimated by OP No.1 for Rs.2,08,641/-. But, the complainant did not turned up for its repair the Ops have examined two more witnesses as per R.W.2 and R.W.3 to substantiate the claim of Ops and produced document as per Ex.R.2 containing 08 pages pertaining to vehicle history report issued by Ops from which the Ops contended that, one free service was skipped by the complainant to the said vehicle and this fact has not been denied by the complainant in his evidence affidavit. Looking to the document Ex.R.2, 4, 5, 6 ,7, 8 and 9 issued by Lahoti Motors Pvt.Ltd., i.e., OP No.3 that, the job card recommendation depicts that, the complainant has run without coolant (vehicle got over heated), found coolant leakage from Thermostat wall, vehicle regular service was not done, one service was skipped and it is further observed by the Ops that, vehicle come to the company with engine noise and diesel tank mixing kerosene. From the above observation made by Ops recommended the complainant to give signature, documentation like RC Book, PAN Card and ID proof and one under taking letter to commence work and payment of deposit of Rs.50,000/- and issued letter to the complainant as per Ex.R.3. Instead of approaching for further repairs the complainant approached this Consumer commission without any valid reason.
12. As per the records produced by Ops as per Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.9 it is clear case from the side of Ops that, the complainant himself has taken the vehicle to the OP No.1 premises for repair, wherein the Ops found that, the fuel tank containing the mix of Kerosene and the service by OPs is not available under the terms and conditions of OP companies.
13. The complainant sought for appointment of commissioner to inspect the engine of the said car, to verity whether the fuel tank containing with mixed kerosene and diesel. The Ops also agreed for the appointment of commissioner to inspect the vehicle fuel tank. This commission appointed One Sri.Raghunath S/o Ananthrao Kulkarni as a commissioner and after inspection of the said vehicle the commissioner submitted a report of commission. On going through the commission report, it is found that, the kerosene was present in the feul trank and further observe that, “from the service history major repairs for engine are not carriedout. For the service carriedout on 14.06.2016 and 18.01.2017remark of mixing of Kerosene is written. If at all kerosene is used, it will certainly result in overheating of vehicle as the kerosene has less oil, friction between the parts will take place, which result is increase in temperature as the ignition of kerosene is taking place at low temperature than diesel, it may cause engine knocking (Piston Tries to move up in compression stroke and because of the early ignition of fuel in engine, power will be generated before the piston reaches top dead center, resulting in large noise.) As the calorific value of kerosene is lower, naturally the power generation is less resulting in less pickup”.
14. From the observation made by the commissioner he is also of the opinion that, the complainant run his vehicle with mixed Kerosene in diesel. The commissioner has also obtained sample of mixed fuel kerosene and the original diesel in two boxes for further chemical analysis if required by the parties. But both parties not challenged commissioner report and they have submitted that, the samples collected by the commissioner need not sent for further chemical analysis and hence, the report of the commissioner is accepted by this commission.
15. From the above discussion, made by this commission though the complainant proved to be a consumer to the Ops but, the complainant has not proved his case against the Ops for deficiency of service and the point No.1 answered in the negative as against complainant and point No.2 answered in the affirmative in favor of OPs and hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
::ORDERS::
The complaint filed by the complainants U/sec.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against Ops is hereby dismissed There is no order as to cost.
The office is directed to dispose the samples collected by the Commissioner after appeal period is over.
Intimate parties accordingly.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Commission on this 31st day of October-2023).
Kum. Kavita, Member DCDRC Bidar | | Shri.MabuSaheb H. Chabbi, President DCDRC Bidar |
Documents produced by the complainant.
1. Ex.P.1 &2-Copy of service estimate dt:27.08.2017.
2. Ex.P.3-Job slip issued by Lahoti Motors Pvt.Ltd.,
Gulbarga dt:21.07.2017.
3. Ex.P.4-Accident repair job slip sheet issued by Lahoti
Motors dt:06.07.2017.
4. Ex.P.5-Job slip issued by Lahoti Motors Pvt.Ltd.,
Gulbarga dt:22.02.2016.
5. Ex.P.6-Accident repair job slip sheet issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt.Ltd., Gulbarga dt:28.02.2017.
6. Ex.P.7-Job Card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors dt:20.03.2017.
7. Ex.P.8-Job card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt. Ltd. dt:20.03.2017.
8. Ex.P.9-Job card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt. Ltd. dt:02.06.2017.
9. Ex.P.10-Job slip issued by auto motive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.
dt:23.09.2017.
10. Ex.P.11-Copy of Aadhar Card pertaining to deceased complainant.
Document produced by the Respondent.
1. Ex.R.1-Copy of certificate issued by Auto Motive
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., dt:28.12.2017.
2. Ex.R.2-Copy of vehicle history issued by Auto Motive
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Latur dt:23.08.2017(8 pages).
3. Ex.R.3-Copy of mail communication to the customer from OP
No.1 (3 pages).
4. Ex.R.4-Copy of Job Card retail cash memo issued by Lahoti
Motors Pvt.Ltd. dt:14.06.2016.
5. Ex.R.5- Copy of Job Card retail cash memo issued by OP No.2
dt:18.01.2017.
6. Ex.R.6-Copy of pre-invoice issued by OP No.2 dt:05.08.2017.
7. Ex.R.7-Copy of vehicle history issued by OP No.1
dt:23.08.2017.
8. Ex.R.8-Copy of vehicle history issued by OP No.2
dt:18.01.2017.
9. Ex.R.9-Copy of vehicle history issued by OP No.2
dt:14.06.2016.
Witness examined.
Complainant:
P.W.1- Shah Hashir Abdulla Quadari S/o Late Shah Ibrahim Quadri,
(Complainant No.6).
Opponents:
R.W.1- Sri Sanjay Vasanthrao Dojode.
R.W.2- Sri. Sidramesh S/o Manikrao.
R.W.3- Sri.Ramanjayneyaru Ummidi S/o Sh.U V V Satyanarayana.
Kum. Kavita, Member DCDRC Bidar | | Shri.Mabu Saheb H. Chabbi, President DCDRC Bidar |
