PRESENT

                   Complainant by Adv.Shri.Nandkishor Parab present.   

                   Opponent No.1 by Adv. Sakina Ruhawala present.

                   Opponent No.2 by  Adv.Shri.Motwani present.

                   Opponent No. 3 by Adv. Shri.Sunil Shroff present.                      

                                                        ORDER

(Per- Shri. S. D. Madake Hon’ble President. )

1.       The Complainant filed  complaint for deficiency in service against opposite parties as per section 12 of consumer protection Act 1986 on following grounds.

2.       It is a case of the complainant that, she has purchased the Maruti WagonR VXI-BS4 Metallic Bakers Chocolate Car bearing No. MH-02-CB-6699 from the dealer Vitesse Private Limited (Hereinafter referred to as “Said Dealer”) for total sum of Rs. 4,42,502/- (Rupees Four Lacs Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Two only) on 29/03/2011.

3.       The complainant stated that the Dealer has given warranty of said Car for 2 years. The complainant has paid the price of the car by various cheques. At the time of delivery he got a Bumper damaged car with inferior quality seat covers in presence of one Mr. Vaibhav Satam, who is team leader and Mr. Mayur, who is sales executive.

4.       The complainant stated that, the Manager of the Showroom has issued a letter on 10/05/2011 assuring that, Bumper will be repair at the time of first servicing, however, he failed to do so.

5.       The complainant stated that, it was not disclosed to him that, entire car is damaged and he has lodged complaint with opponents through email on 04/11/2011. The complainant stated that, he got vehicle serviced for 3 times, however, neither Manager nor the Engineer or customer care has informed him that, entire car is damaged.

6.       The complainant stated that, on third servicing i.e. on 03/10/2011 Mr. Sachin More has informed him the Tyre was out and need to be replaced and asked him to contact Good Year India Limited, Manufacturer of Tyres (Hereinafter referred to as “Said Tyre Company”) and also he was charged for Rs. 2,161/- for front disk, break pad, even the car was in warranty period.

7.       According to compainant, he lodged complaint bearing No. Q-2010110196 dated 20/10/2011 with Tyre Company for Tyre problem, who has informed him to send the car at deliver’s workshop and given an appointment on 04/11/2011. However, when he contacted on 03/11/2011 inquiring about details of engineer to check the tyres. However, he was informed that, his complaint was cancelled due to lapes of time.

8.       The complainant stated that, he checked his car from authorized dealer of Mahim i.e. Premji Sales Company Private Limited, Kohli Tyres Private Limited, who has given the written estimate that, all 5 tyres are out and needs to be replaced. However, as per the engineer of Tyre company Mr. Vijay Ajgaonkar that, tyres were out due to vehicle was   having  manufacturing defect.

9.       The complainant stated that, his vehicle is in warranty period and the tyre company must have replaced all 4 tyres without asking any costs.It is also case of complainant that, his vehicle was not giving proper average, therefore, he left the car to the showroom. However, Manager informed him that, whole car is damaged and given Estimate 41,066/- on 05/11/2011.

10.     The complainant stated that, workshop managers behaved with him very rudely and harassed him for no reason and even none from the opposite parties have co-operated him. It is alleged that he was suffering huge losses for non-working condition of the car.

11.     It is a case of complainant that, he has sent notice on 15/11/2011 demanding replacement of the car. However, opponents failed to fulfill his demands. The complainant prayed for compensation of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 70,000/- for the physical and mental harassment and also replacement of the car. The complainant has filed affidavit in support of his complaint.

12.     The opposite party No.1 filed written statement and denied all the alegations made by compainant. It is a case of opponent No. 1 i.e. Maruzi Suzuki India Limited (Hereinafter referred to as “Said Maruti”) that, complaint is frivolous and vexatious and required to be dismissed with exemplary cost  under section 26 of the Act.

13.     The opposite party No.1 stated that  complainant failed to make out any deficiency in services or unfair trade practices. It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the warranty is set out under the warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet.

14.     It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the vehicle is damaged due to under heavy body hit / impact resulting into damage to front cross member, suspension frame, wheel rims and tyres got bent, rare RH trailing arm and casing also got bend, running bored and front bumper got severe damaged.

15.     It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the complaint  has failed to abide by terms and conditions of warrarty and is  negligent in proper maintenance of vehicle in question,therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the complaint is bad for non joinder of party, the tyres are not manufactured by them, but supplied by manufacturing of tyres and even otherwise as section 4 (b) – tyres and tubes are not covered under warranty of opponent no. 1.

16.     According to opponent no.1 the complainant with ulterior motive had been making demands which are unreasonable and taking the shelter of this forum and trying to put undue pressure on the opponent No. 1, the complainant has failed to disclose any specific cause of action in the present compliant against the opponent No. 1.

17.     It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the allegations made are outside the scope of section 2 (i) (c) of the Act. The opponent No. 1 mentioned that, the company is world renowned automobile company.  It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the relationship between the dealer and company is principal to principal basis and governed by dealership Agreement and thus, the opponent No. 1 is not party to the alleged transaction. Therefore, name of the opponent No. 1 is required to be deleted.

18.     The opponent No. 1 further stated that, the warranty is not absolute and subject to certain terms and condition and limitation as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet.   It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, complainant is distorting the facts and has concocted of false story to mislead the Hon’ble Forum to obtain the unjust gains.

19.     It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, cause of damage is due to external factor and damage is not due to manufacturing defect in vehicle. When complainant has brought the vehicle to the opponent No. 2 at the time of first and second free service he did not point out alleged problem nor any abnormality was observed by the expert service engineer of opponent No. 3.

20.     It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the vehicle in question is defect free and is perfect road worthy condition and refused the averments made by the complainant. It is a case of opponent No. 1 that, the complainant has reported the clutch adjust, wheel rim damage as demanded repairs upon which the vehicle of thoroughly inspected by the expert, service engineer of the workshop and found the clutch and wheel rim is damaged conditions.

21.     It is the case of opponent No. 1 that, the break shoe and pads and clutch disk, wheel alignment, rubber items, battery, tyres etc. are items of normal wear and tear and the  replacement and repairs to the same are not construed as manufacturing defect in the vehicle.   It is the case of the opponent No. 1 adjustment of the normal wear and tear were carried out along with caring maintenance schedule service to the vehicle at the time of obtaining alleged services.

22.     It is the case of the opponent No 1 is that mileage of the vehicle depends  on several factors like driving habits, gear change patterns usage of A.C, air pressure in the tyres, wind speed, traffic conditions, fuel quality, maintenance of vehicle, road conditions etc.

23.     It is the case of the opponent No 1 that the complainant is using the vehicle for the business purposes therefore the complainant is not the consumer within the definition of the Consumer Act.  The opponent No 1 prayed that complaint be dismissed with cost.

24.     The opposite party No.2 filed written statement and denied all the alegations made by compainant. It is the case of the opponent No. 2 that the complainant filled by the complainant is not maintainable in law or on facts and no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint.

25.     It is the case of the opponent No. 2 that complaint is mainly against opponent No 1 and 3 who have allegedly supplied defective parts to the complainant It is the case of the opponent No. 2 that the complaint is filed with ulterior motive and complainant failed to attach evidence to support  the contentions so far as the tyres are concerned.

26.     The opponent No. 2 stated that complainant has registered the complaint for which appointment was fixed  on 25/10/2011, however, complainant has refused to have inspected tyres on appointed date and thereafter, date was fixed 4/11/2011.

27.     It is the case of the opponent No. 2 that, technical expert inspected all the tyres of the complainants car in line with the warranty policy of the opponent No. 2.  On the spot inspection of all tyres of the vehicle of the complainant it was found that front left tyre of the complainants car was the only tyre that was found to be under warrantable condition as per the warranty policy of the opponent No. 2 and hence, the said tyre was offered to be adjusted  on pro-rata basis, which is unaccepted standard industry practice.

28.     The opponent No.2 stated that, rare left and front right tyre were found normal wear and the rare right and spare tyres of the complaint’s car were found having impact damage /cut on the side wall. Therefore, cannot be said as manufacturing defect and so also tyre is a rubber product and can be damage any point of time. The opponent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the compaint.

29.     The opposite party No.3 filed written statement and denied all the alegations made by compainant.The opponent No. 3 has submitted their reply and which is almost on the same line of opponent No. 1 and 2  prayed for dismissal of the case. The company says and submits that at the time of the delivery of the car there was a small negligible 4 inches scratch near the  lamp on th e bumper not even a dent, for which it had assured the complainant that it would take care of the same at the time of first  service.

30.     The complainant was fully satisfied with the  said  assurance and having not found any other defect in the car took delivery of the car. Late on, the said scratch was removed by the Company to her satisfaction. The opponent No.3 submitted that all allegations made in the complaint are totally false and untenable. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for.

31.     We have peused complaint, written  statement filed by opposite parties and all the documents filed by the parties.  Considering the rivals submission, of both the parties and documents on the record, it appears that, there is dispute among the parties regarding damage of the vehicle on the ground that, whether vehicle was already damaged or it is damaged after complainant taking delivery.

32.     It is observed that, there is no dispute about the purchase of  vehicle and payment of price of the vehicle to the said dealer. It is admitted  that, the dealer has admitted that, damage bumper will be repaired and also confirmed that, seat covers will be changed at the time of servicing.

33.     The opponent No. 2 i.e. tyre company has admitted that, one of the tyre was damaged and same was in warranty, so also it is admitted that, front right tyres were found having normal wear, however, space tyre of the complainant’s car was found having impact damage.

34.     The opponent no. 1 has categorically stated that, so far tyres are concern it is a warranty of the tyre company and not of opponent No. 1. It is settled practice that, any manufacturer of vehicle is required to get to various parts manufacture from various manufacturers and for that purposes vehicle manufacturer do enter into various contracts with such a suppliers.

35.     The opponent No. 1 has given its brief note about its reputation. The opponent no. 1 has also submitted that, before launching any vehicle the process will require to under go for various compliances, approvals and feedback of internal research and development. It is further stated that, there is a homologation test considering all aspects of quality, safety and emission norms.

36.     The opponent No. 1 is ISO certified company using sophisticated technology use in manufacturing process for production of vehicles and which are 100% defect free. It is also pertinent  to note that, the opponent No. 1 has ISO  certification for maintaining internal manufacturing standards. The vehicle in question has also under gone  all checks and only  after final check OK it is dispatched to opponent No. 3. The opponent No. 1 has also claimed various other high value standards, ethics, technology and process.

37.     It is the case for any buyer  that, when he purchase any vehicle or any product he rely on the expertize and commitment of the brand of seller of final product. In the present case Maruti. It appears that  the complainant  has accepted bumper damaged vehicle only on relying the reputation of opponent No. 1. Had it been the case that, he does not have faith in the opponent No. 1 he could have denied the vehicle and have demanded another vehicle.

38.     It is pertinent to note that, one shall not punish other for his goodness and faith. In the present case, considering bumper damage as normal damage and accepting the vehicle cannot be construed as mistake of opponent No. 1.   

39.     The tyre company has categorically admitted that, except the spare tyres other tyre had defect, but as per their policy it does not  cover under warranty. Any warranty card of any company is a standard form of contract.

40.     In view of the claim of quality, process and standards made by the opponent No. 1 it is not legitimately expected why defective vehicle, bumper damaged, was delivered to the complainant. So also the opponent No. 1, though having every expertize and technology, failed to explain why and how vehicle could have damaged. One of the possibility cannot be denied that, in the delivery from opponent No. 1 to opponent No. 3 vehicle got damaged.

41.            In view of the admission given by the tyre company, it is clear that, except the spare tyres all other tyres were defective. It was very unfortunate that, both the corporations have resisted the complaint on only technical grounds irrespective of clear admission of the defective vehicle by the said dealer in its letter dated 01/05/2011 i.e. immediately within  one month after delivery of vehicle i.e. 29/03/2011.

42.     49. The opponent No. 3 has failed to deliver services to the complainant by coordinating and convincing to the opponent No. 1 and 2. the dealer also failed to give proper treatment to the complainant. Therefore, liable for deficiency in services.

43.     In the result, we passed the following order.

                               ORDER

1.       RBT Complaint No. 25/2012 is Partly Allowed.   

2.         The opponent No. 1 is hereby directed to replace the parts required to be changed and repair the vehicle as may require including the items mentioned in the estimate of repair on 05/11/2011. If, it is already repaired in that case,refund the entire amount as may have received to the complainant within a period of 90 days from receipt of this order.

3.       If, the complainant has got it repaired from outside in that case, refund the        entire amount as per the bills submitted by the complainant.

4.       The opponent No. 2 is hereby directed to replace all the tyres. If, complainant has already replaced tyres of his car in that case, refund the cost of all  tyres.

5.   The opponent No. 3 is  directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as damages within a period of 90 days from the receipt of this order.

6.       The opponent No. 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the    complainant towards cost of the complaint.

7.Copy of this order sent to the both parties.