STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      523 of 2017

Date of Institution:      02.05.2017

Date of Decision :      30.01.2018

Maruti Suzuki India Limited 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070

And Also

Maruti Sales & Service, C-119, Nariana Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-28.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Parties No.4 & 5

Versus

1.      Azad Singh Panwar s/o Sh. Sukhpal Singh Panwar, Resident of House No.E-3, University Campus, D.C.R.U.S.T., Murthal, District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Pasco Automobiles, Pasco House, 6, Industrial Estate, Old – Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122015.

3.      Jagmohan Motors Limited, Delhi Road, Sonipat.

4.      Murthal Auto (P) Limited Plot No.44, HSIIDC, Murthal, District Sonipat.

Respondents-opposite Parties No.1 to 3

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

Argued by:          Shri Salil Sahhlok, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent  Azad Singh Panwar in person. 

                                                   O R D E R

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Azad Singh Panwar – complainant (respondent No.1 herein) purchased a car (Ritz LDI BS-IV – Diesel) bearing Chassis No.MA3FDEBIS00 340852, Engine No.D13A 1689086 manufactured by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited – Opposite Party No.5 through its authorised dealer M/s Pasco Automobiles – Opposite Party No.1 on October 04^th, 2011 for a consideration of Rs.5,11,150/- vide receipt dated October 04^th, 2011 (Exhibit C-1). The warranty period of the newly purchased car initially was two years which was later on extended by M/s Maruti Sales and Service – Opposite Party No.4 on payment of Rs.10,315/- for a period of two years more from September 20^th, 2013 up to October 03^rd, 2015 or till 80,000 Kms. distance is covered.  

3.                First service of the car was done on November 07^th, 2011 by M/s Jagmohan Motors Limited on payment of Rs.829/- vide Job Card Exhibit C-5 and second service was got done from Opposite Party No.3 – Murthal Auto Private Limited on June 08^th, 2012 vide Job Card Exhibit C-6 on payment of Rs.274/-.  Again the car vehicle was taken to the workshop of authorised service centre of the opposite party No.3 on July 15^th, 2012 as the complainant observed certain noise in the car vehicle. The quantity of engine oil was very low and the engine oil was changed on payment of Rs.3521/- vide Job Card Exhibit C-7.  Suspecting some manufacturing defects, the car vehicle was put under observation of the company by the opposite party No.3 and it was noted in the history of the vehicle also. When the vehicle covered 6074 Kms. distance again unidentified noise was observed. The complainant had written a letter in this regard on July 21^st, 2012 to the Chief General Manager of the opposite party No.5. The car vehicle was again taken to the workshop of the opposite party No.3, authorised service centre on January 11^th, 2013 when the vehicle had covered 9633 Kms. distance. After the complainant again observed same type of noise in the engine of the car vehicle, on that date, the car vehicle was overhauled and the complainant also had to pay an amount of Rs.5240/- vide Job Card Exhibit C-9. 

4.                The complainant on January 15^th, 2013 tried to meet Shri Partho Banerjee, Chief General Manager of the opposite party No.5 but meeting could not be possible and thereafter the complainant had written letter dated January 17^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-26) to the opposite party No.5 with a prayer to replace the defective car vehicle. Again on January 24^th, 2013 lot of smoke with flame was visible from the engine of the car vehicle. The vehicle could not be used for a period of six days up to January 29^th, 2013 despite letter written to the opposite parties on January 25^th, 2013. The car vehicle was shifted to the premises of the opposite party No.4 with the help of a crane and repair work of the vehicle could be completed up to February 04^th, 2013.  During this period, the complainant had written several letters to the opposite parties for redressal of the grievance of the complainant and to replace the defective car vehicle with a new one.  These letters were written on October 15^th, 2013; October 30^th, 2013; October 31^st, 2013 and November 10^th, 2013.  It is pleaded that the complainant has been provided a defective car vehicle having a manufacturing defect.

5.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the existing defective car vehicle with a new one or in the alternative to refund the total amount of Rs.5,11,000/- paid by the complainant as sale price of the car vehicle with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; to pay an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-  spent by the complainant for repair of the vehicle and to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

6.                The opposite parties No.1 and 2 in the written version have taken plea that if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in that situation, the manufacturer – M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited is liable for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The opposite party No.1 is just like a mediator in between the complainant and the opposite party No.5 - M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited. The complainant is not entitled to receive any amount from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 as claimed in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

7.                Opposite Party No.3 was given up being un-necessary by the complainant on November 18^th, 2015.

8.                Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 have taken plea in their written version that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that it is not a case of deficiency in service.  It is pleaded that the vehicles are manufactured by the answering opposite parties but the same are sold by the manufacturer to its authorised dealers under an independent contract of Sales of Goods Act.  The liability of the opposite parties No.4 and 5 being manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per Clause 3 of the warranty policy. The complainant had purchased a brand new and defect free car after satisfying himself. On July 15^th, 2012 report was received from the complainant regarding problem of high engine oil consumption and turbo noise. The oil filter was changed and the vehicle was put under observation for the noise problem. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The engine of the car vehicle was inspected and was found to be in good parameters. In fact, the complainant has filed the present complaint on the basis of assumption that there is some noise in the engine. There was no abnormal noise in the vehicle and the vehicle was found in good working condition. As there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, request of the complainant for replacement of the car vehicle cannot be accepted. The opposite parties No.4 and 5 have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

9.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

10.              After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opp0osite parties No.3 to 5 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in lump sum to the complainant for  rendering deficient services, for causing un-necessary mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

11.              Aggrieved with the impugned order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, Maruti Suzuki India Limited – Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 have filed present First Appeal No.523 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint.

12.              We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, respondent No.1 – complainant in person and perused the case file.  

13.              During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant purchased a new car (Ritz LDI BS-IV – Diesel) from the opposite party No.1 on October 04^th, 2011 on payment of Rs.5,11,150/-. Initially the warranty period was two years which was later on got extended from September 20^th, 2013 to October 03^rd, 2015 or till the car vehicle covers a distance of 80,000 Kms. There is also no controversy of any type that from the date of purchase of the car vehicle i.e. October 04^th, 2011 up to October 17^th, 2013 the car vehicle was taken to the service center of Muruti Suzuki for repair for routine service as well as to remove certain defects in the engine related to consumption of the engine oil etc, 18 times.  The detail of each visit regarding repair of the car vehicle mentioning date, time and month is given in detail in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and there is no necessity to give detail of visits of service centers and office of the opposite parties in this order.  The vehicle was taken to the service centers of the opposite parties sometimes due to noise in the engine of the car vehicle and sometimes due to smoke with flame from the engine. Anyhow, keeping all these circumstances in mind learned District Forum has given findings that it cannot be considered as a case of manufacturing defect in the newly purchased car vehicle. During the course of arguments, it was told that earlier an appeal was filed by the complainant challenging the findings of the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order with a request to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint. It was common case of both the parties that the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed and findings were not given that it was a case of manufacturing defect.  In these circumstances, we affirm the findings of the learned District Forum to this effect that it was not a case of manufacturing defect in the car vehicle.

14.              In this case, although findings were given that there was no manufacturing defect in the car vehicle but despite that the complainant was awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by the learned District Forum to the complainant on account of deficiency in service, un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. Although, it is not a case of manufacturing defect in the car vehicle but this fact also cannot be overlooked that the complainant had to visit the service centers of Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 18 times during the period from October 03^rd, 2011 to October 03^rd, 2015. It is also evident from the record that once the vehicle was put under observation suspecting it a case of manufacturing defect.  Anyhow, in this case this fact also cannot be completely overlooked that the complainant had to face un-necessary harassment, mental agony and had to spent lot of money for repair of the car vehicle by visiting the service centers and office of the opposite parties and also in the litigation. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, we feel the findings of the learned District Forum to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant appears to be legal and justified whereby the opposite parties No.3 to 5 have been directed by the learned District Forum to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in lump sum to the complainant for rendering deficient services for causing un-necessary harassment, mental agony and the amount spent for litigation expenses.

15.              As per discussions above in detail, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, the findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

16.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL