Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/649/2019

Sh. Balraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

CM Auto Sales (P) Ltd., (Authorized Dealer Maruti Suzuki) - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	649 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	18.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	22.11.2021

 

 

 

 

 

Balraj Singh aged about 50 years s/o Late Sh.Boota Singh, Resident of House No.525, Near Guga Mari Mandir, Village Kansal, Post Office- Naya Gaon, SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  CM Auto Sales (P) Ltd., (Authorised Dealer Maruti Suzuki), Plot No.17, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002 through its MD

2]  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Office At SCO 39-40, Ground Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its authorized signatory.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                            PRESIDENT

                SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA                     MEMBER

               

 

 

For Complainant :    Sh.Harish Rihari, Advocate

For OP No.1     :    Sh.Amit Bhanot, Advocate

For OP No.2     :    Sh.Salil Sablok Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA,  MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant purchased Maruti Vitara Brezza V EW Car from OP No.1 on 5.11.2018, carrying two years warranty, on paying complete amount of Rs.8,81,000/- (Ann.C-1). The said vehicle was also got insured as well as registered vide Regd. No.PB-65-AT-9257 (Ann.C-2 & C-3). It is stated that the complainant took his car to OP No.1 on 12.1.2019 and 2.3.2019 regarding wheel balancing – 4 wheel and wheel alignment (Ann.C-4 & C-5), but the defect was not removed by the staff of OP No.1.  The complainant alleged to have visited the OP No.1 again on 15.6.2019 regarding wheel balancing – 4 wheel, wheel alignment and mileage of the vehicle, but the complainant was not satisfied with the work done/service done by OP No.1.  It is submitted that complainant visited OP No.1 on 19.6.2019 & 20.6.2019 regarding accessories fitment/repairs and mileage but the alleged defect was not removed by staff of OP No.1 till date (Ann.C-8 & C-9). 

         It is pleaded that the complainant got the tyres of the car checked from MRF Ltd., whose technical person, after inspection informed vide Inspection Report (Ann.C-10) that the tyres get damaged as a result of unequal and excessive contact pressure exerted at the road contact area of the tyre and this was not due to any manufacturing defect, hence rejected the claim (Ann.C-10). It is also pleaded that the OP No.1 instead of replacing the tyres with new one refused to do so.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  

2]       OP No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the vehicle in question has properly been serviced whenever brought to the service centre.  It has also been stated that in March, 2019, when the complainant visited for the third free service of the vehicle in question mileage @9868 kms, this time despite recommendation by the officials, the complainant refused to conduct alignment and wheel balancing. Thereafter, the complainant visited in June, 2019 mileage @17827 and this time after the test drive of the vehicle, the official of the replying OP advised wheel alignment and balance, but the complainant refused, but still out of goodwill gesture, the wheel alignment was done as complementary. It has been stated that the official of OP No.1 had advised the complainant that tyres of the vehicle seems to have issue, so he should visit the office of tyre manufacturing company for inspection i.e. MRF Ltd. Submitted further that the report of manufacturer/MRF Ltd. shows that the tyres were damaged as a result of unequal and excessive contact pressure exerted at the road contact area of the tyre.  It has also submitted that the said report nowhere depicts that the damage is due to any improper alignment.  Further submitted that the report clearly shows that the issue with tyre is because of improper upkeep and driving.  It is pleaded that the tyres of the car, which are of normal wear and tear, are not covered under the warranty policy of OP Company.  It is stated that the complainant has not impleaded the tyre company as one of the party to the present complaint.  Denying the claim of the complainant, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         OP No.2 has also filed reply stating that the relationship between the answering OP and the dealer/OP No.1 is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement. Stated that every service to the vehicle was properly done when brought. However, on third free service the complainant refused to do the wheel alignment and wheel balancing of the vehicle (Ann.C-5). Submitted further that the complainant had refused for wheel alignment and balance on 3^rd free service  and now the vehicle has been plied for another 7959 kms from 2.3.2019 without wheel alignment and balance due to which the tyre wear and problem with alignment occurred in the vehicle as reported by the complainant. It has been submitted that the tyre of the vehicles is not a manufactured item but assembled item, the warranty of which is provided by the Manufacturer of such tyre and not the answering OP.  Submitted further that the bought out items such as tyres, tubes etc. does not come under the warranty ambit of manufacturer of car, hence the tyre was sent to the tyre manufacturer i.e. MRF and vide report dated 21.6.2019, they had stated that damage was due to excessive and unequal contact pressure at the road contact area.  It has also been submitted that the report further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and the claim was rejected by the tyre manufacturer. Denying any deficiency in service and other allegations of complainant, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The parties have led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record including written arguments.

5]      Record transpires that the vehicle in question purchased by the complainant on 5.11.2018 having two years warranty was got serviced from time to time as per service schedule of the company. As per record, the wheel alignment and wheel balancing regularly been done except on one occasion. Complainant alleged that since the purchase of the vehicle, a defect in the tyres of the car has been noticed and it was time & again brought to the workshop of OP No.1 for rectifying the defect, which the OP No.1 failed to rectify till the complainant again approached OP No.1 on 5.11.2018 with same complaint of tyres i.e. within one year of its purchase when the vehicle had run only  18207 Kms.  The tyres were also got checked from MRF Ltd. who rejected the claim stating that the tyres were damaged as a result of unequal and excessive contact pressure exerted at the road contact area of the tyre adding that this is not due to any manufacturing defect (Ann.C-10). 

6]       As per Warranty Policy (Ann.R-2/2), it is mentioned that “The term of the warranty shall be twenty four (24) months or 40,000 kilometers (whichever occurs first) from the date of delivery to the first owner”. 

7]       The Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs- MHA WO NO.7627/JSP (74) dated 3.8.1974 as notified in Provisional Manual for Central Reserve Police Force, prescribe the normal life span of tyre in plain/Hill area as follows:

	Hilly Area	Plain Area
Light vehicle	35000 kms.	45000 kms

 

         The tyres of the car of the complainant have been damaged on use for 18160 Kilometers only, whereas the normal life span even in the hilly area for tyres in Light Vehicle is prescribed as 35000 Kms and on plain area is 45000 Kms.

8]       The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(10) define:-

(10)  "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression "defective" shall be construed accordingly;

9]      The analytical examination of complete evidence on record and pleadings and looking into deteriorated condition of the tyres of the car only on running of 18160 Kms., explicitly proves that the tyres fitted in the car of the complainant were having sub-standard material.  Had the tyres were of good quality material, it would not have damaged just on running of car for 18160 Kms. The Opposite Parties should have taken steps to use good quality tyre of high standard.  If the tyre has been damaged at such minimal road mileage without any fault on the part of the owner/driver, for such loss, the Opposite Parties, which includes the dealer herein are solely responsible for it.  

10]      The contentions raised by OPs No.2 seeking immunity from the liability is unsustainable. The manufacturer has used hundreds of parts made by other ancillary units/companies in the car. The manufacturer at its own preferred to use parts from other companies and as such, the dealer i.e. Sales Agent of such car has to bear the responsibility in case of any fault/defect in parts of other outer agencies fitted in the car.   

11]      No contributory negligence on the part of complainant has been found since he as a diligent buyer taken good care of his vehicle by submitting it for timely services as per service manual and nowhere in the job card issued by the OP No.1 it has been recorded that there is any fault on the part of the complainant for not keeping upright the air pressure in the tyres of the vehicle in question.  The tyres of the car of complainant has damaged due to its internal manufacturing sub-standard material for which the complainant cannot be made to suffer. 

12]     The report Ann.C-10 of MRF Ltd. regarding reasons which caused the tyres damage is vague and superfluous.  The tyres of the car got damaged merely on running 18160 kilometers leads to the conclusion that defect, if any, is only due to its manufacturing defect and of low quality material used for the tyres.  Thus the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of OPs is writ large.

13]      Keeping into consideration the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 jointly & severally with direction to replace all four defective tyres of the car of the complainant with new tyres, free of cost.  The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay to the complainant a compensatory cost Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.     

Announced

22^nd November, 2021                                                                                                                                                              sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER