DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                   Consumer Complaint No. 127 of 2015

                                         Date of institution:  18.03.2015                                        Date of decision   :  25.07.2017

Upkardeep Kaur daughter of Hardev Singh, resident of 301, Sector 15, Dashmesh Nagar, Kharar, District Mohali.

……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     C.M. Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Morinda Road, Khanpur-Kharar, District Mohali through its Managing Director.

2.     C.M. Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.17 Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

3.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Executive Director.

4.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Plot No.1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                        ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Amit Bhanot, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

                Shri Sahil Abhi proxy counsel for Shri Salil Sabhlok, counsel for OP No.3 and 4.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Upkardeep Kaur has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant purchased Alto Car K-10 VXI from OP No.1 on 12.12.2013 by paying of Rs.3,30,000/- for the price of the car and Rs.20,000/- for registration and Rs.10,000/- for insurance of the car.  As per directions of OP No.1 the complainant got checked/serviced the vehicle periodically.  The complainant got the second service of the vehicle conducted from OP No.1 on 30.05.2014 and also paid the expenses for the service but the service conducted by OP No.1 was not satisfactory.  In the month of September the complainant made oral request to OP No.1 that the alignment of the vehicle was not correct whereas the distance covered by the vehicle was about 6000 Kms only.   In the month of November when the complainant tried to start the car, it was not in working condition. The complainant informed OP No.1. The worker of OP No.1 came to the complainant and informed that the battery of the vehicle was totally damaged. The vehicle remained in the premises of OP No.1 for one week from 11.11.2014 to 18.11.2014 and during that period battery test and alignment test was conducted by OP No.1.  As per report the battery was totally damaged and alignment was not correct because of second service by OP No.1 due to which both the tyres of vehicle were totally damaged.  The complainant made a complaint to OP No.4 on this OP No.1 provided another battery but till today nothing has been done by OP No.1 as well as OP No.4. Due to faulty second service of the car by OP No.1, the complainant is unable to use the car. The complainant is an advocate and has taken the car for her personal use and for using the car for going to different courts.  In the absence of car, the complainant is hiring taxi daily and other means of transport and has spent more than Rs.60,000/- for hiring taxi from November, 2014 till date. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to change the tyres with new ones; change the battery with a new battery; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for harassing the complainant mentally, physically and financially; to pay Rs.60,000/- spent for hiring taxi from November, 2014 to date and to pay Rs.20,000/- as costs of the present proceedings.

3.             Upon notice, the OPs caused appearance. OP No.1 and 2 filed joint reply in which they have raised preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of these OPs.  The second service done on 30.05.2014 was to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant came in November with the problem of battery and a substitute battery was provided to the complainant for use of vehicle. The original batter was sent to the Exide office for testing and check up and the complainant was informed about the test report also.  The report says that the battery is absolutely fine and it got discharged because the vehicle was not being used by the complainant for a long period of time.  Moreover, the complainant herself has stated in the complaint that the vehicle was brought to OP No.1 for second service in May, 2014 and the problem regarding battery was stated in the month of November, 2014.  Even the alignment and balancing report is 14.11.2014 i.e. almost 5-6 months from the date of second service.  The officials of the answering OPs called the complainant several times in November, 2014 to get back her original battery and to return the substitute battery but the complainant never turned up. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  On merits, these OPs have denied the averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 

4.             OP No.3 and 4 have also filed joint reply in which they have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is without cause of action. The liability of these OPs being manufacturer is limited to provide warranty benefits as per Clause-3 of the warranty policy. The complainant is not consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Tyres of the vehicle are not covered under warranty as per Clause 4 (b) of Warranty Policy. On merits, these OPs have pleaded that  wheel alignment, tyre rotation and wheel balancing are excluded from warranty as per Clause 4 (a) and tubes/tyres being items of wear and tear and not covered under warranty as per clause 4 (b) of warranty policy.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, OP No.3 and 4 have also sought dismissal of the complaint against them.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of  delivery challan Ex.C-1, temporary registration number Ex.C-2; RC Ex.C-3; service coupons Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5; vehicle details Ex.C-6; battery checking report dated 18.11.2014 Ex.C-7; alignment report Ex.C-8; letters dated 03.12.2014 alongwith postal receipts Ex.C-9 and C-10; warranty policy Ex.C-11; bills Ex.C-12 to C-16; orders of Civil Court Kharar dated 10.11.2014 and 27.11.2014 Ex.C-17 and C-18; certified copies of power of attorney Ex.C-19 and C-20 and original receipts Ex.C-21 and C-22. In rebuttal the counsel for the OP No.1 and 2, tendered in evidence affidavit of Ramesh
Chand Thakur, their HR Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and letter dated 19.11.2014 Ex.OP-1/2.   Counsel for OP No.3 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vidur Gupta, their authorised representative Ex.OP-3/1; original dealership agreement Ex.OP-3/2 and warranty policy Ex.OP-3/3.

6.             It has been argued by the complainant that the second service done by OP No.1 to her vehicle was not proper and due to that the wheel alignment of the vehicle was improper and the battery was also got damaged.  The complainant has argued that she is an Advocate and in the absence of vehicle, she had to hire taxi for attending cases in different courts.  The complainant has further argued that the dispute regarding battery has been resolved during pendency of the complaint as fresh battery has been received by her and now the issues remains regarding wear and tear of types due to wrong defective service.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 have argued that the complainant got the second service conducted on 30.05.2014 and the complaint of battery and tyres was reported in November, 2014.Learned counsel has thus argued that if the service was not done properly on 30.05.2014 how the complainant was using the vehicle till November, 2014. Learned counsel has argued that as a goodwill gesture they provided substituted battery to the complainant and even the test report of original battery shows that it got damaged because the car was not put to use by the complainant for a long period of time.  Learned counsel for OP No.3 and 4 has argued that  the tyres are not covered under the warranty policy and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from these OPs.

8.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard their oral submissions.  The grievance of the complainant is twofold i.e. one regarding defective wheel alignment during service on 30.05.2014 by OP No.1 and the other regarding damage to battery.  The issue regarding battery has been resolved on 07.12.2015 during pendency of the present complaint as the complainant herself stated that she has received the fresh battery in lieu of the disputed battery. Thus, the issue which remains to be determined is whether the wear and tear of tyres was due to defective service conducted by OP No.1 on 30.05.2014.  The complainant filed MA No.21 of 2016 for seeking expert opinion on the test report dated 14.11.2014 of tyres and wheel alignment.  On this application, the test report was forwarded to the Incharge CTU Workshop, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. However, the Incharge CTU Workshop, Chandigarh stated that it does not have any expertise in wheel alignment and balance of the car. Accordingly, the complainant was directed to give names of other experts from which the report could be obtained. However, the complainant did not provide the names of persons and the requested the Forum to appoint any person/agency on its own for the report. Accordingly on the request of complainant, Modern Automobiles 4 MW, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh was directed to give expert opinion regarding wheel alignment and wheel balancing of the vehicle in question vide order dated 19.12.2016 and the report was sought by 18.01.2017.  However, the letter to Modern Automobiles could not be sent by the office and on 18.01.2017 the complaint was adjourned to 02.03.2017 for the report. Shri J.S. Sachdeva, Works Manager of Modern Automobiles appeared in the Forum on 02.03.2017 and submitted a letter dated 23.02.2017 which was sent to the complainant for getting her vehicle inspected but the complainant did not turn up.  The complainant who was present in the Forum stated that due to inadvertence she could not contact the expert and sought time to contact him and the complaint was adjourned to 17.04.2017. On 17.04.2017 the complainant made statement that she does not want to press her MA application No.50 of 2017 for issuing direction to Modern Automobiles for inspection of the vehicle and requested to hear the arguments on the complaint.  This entire chain of events shows that the complainant has been unable to corroborate her plea regarding improper wheel alignment and wheel balancing during service conducted to her vehicle on 30.05.2014 by OP No.1. The Hon’ble National Commission in  Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobiles & Anr. Revision Petition Nos.3973 and 3974 of 2012 decided on 06.11.2012 has held that the report of expert was essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect should have been adduced. The mere fact that the vehicle was taken to the service station, for one or two times does not ipso facto, prove the manufacturing defect.

9.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 25.07.2017    

                                  (A.P.S.Rajput)                  

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member