DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1367of 2019
Date of institution: 06.08.2019 Date of decision : 14.08.2019
Kapil Sharma aged 44 years son of Mohan Lal, resident of House No.685, Phase 3B-1, Mohali, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.B-64, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali.
2. Sachin Ahuja, Director of M/s. CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.B-64, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Sunil K. Dixit, counsel for the complainant.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased S Cross Gelta bearing Chassis No.116453, Engine No.5181382 on 30.12.2015 from OP No.1, authorised agent of OP No.3. This vehicle bears registration No.PB-65-AF-4603. All the services of the vehicle were rendered by OP No.1 from the date of its purchase. Complainant always complained about problems in steering because the same gets jammed. However, every time OP No.1 assured that problem is not there. Oiling and other services of steering were used to be provided. Believing OP No.1, being the authorised service provider, complainant trusted on the assurances of OP No.1. From past couple of months, problem in the steering increased day by day and the same rendered driving dangerous as well as life threatening because chances of accident accelerated. Complainant visited OPs many times for getting the problem resolved, but to no effect. One fine morning OPs asked complainant to pay Rs.60,000/- for resolving the problem. This demand was put forth for disclosing that defect in the steering is manufacturing defect. Complainant got knowledge that problem is also existing in other vehicles of same category. So direction to OPs sought for producing record relating to problem of steering occurring in other vehicles also. OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 and 3 sold the defective vehicle to complainant. OPs adopted unfair trade practice because during period of warranty they never asked for Rs.60,000/-, but kept on repairing the steering temporarily fully knowing that they will be able to extract money after expiry of warranty period. Despite service of legal notice dated 15.10.2018, nothing done and as such by claiming that cause of action accrued on 26.09.2018, when illegal demand of Rs.60,000/- raised, this complaint filed for direction to OPs to repair the vehicle for resolving the problem of steering. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.1.00 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/- more claimed.
2. Arguments heard for admission purposes.
3. After going through complaint and the submitted affidavit, it is made out that vehicle in question was purchased by complainant from OP No.1 on 30.12.2015. Though complainant claims that problem in steering is continuing and he had been asking OP No.1 to remove that problem during his visits to the service centre, but despite that date of knowledge of this problem is not at all mentioned. Even dates of visits not at all mentioned anywhere in the complaint. Date of demand of Rs.60,000/- for repairing the steering alleged as 26.09.2018 in Para No.8 of the complaint. Except this date of 26.09.2018, no other date of visit by complainant to OP No.1 has at all been mentioned and as such complainant virtually suppressed material facts in this respect. As the car was purchased on 30.12.2015 and as such its warranty period was to expire on 29.12.2017 because in Para No.2 of legal notice sent by complainant through counsel, it is mentioned that warranty was of two years. In such circumstances it is for complainant to establish or prima facie show that problem of steering erupted before 29.12.2017. However, material produced on record by complainant do not at all establish eruption of such problem before 29.12.2017 and as such if demand of Rs.60,000/- put forth for repair of steering on 26.09.2018, then it is obvious that said demand put forth for rendering due service as per terms and conditions of warranty. As warranty period was to expire on 29.12.2017 and as such if at all defects in any part of the car including steering were to be got removed after 29.12.2017, then complainant had to pay for the same. Being so, raised demand of Rs.60,000/- for repairing steering on 26.09.2018 is quite genuine and valid because said demand raised for repairing the vehicle after warranty period.
4. Though complainant has not referred about vehicle history sheets or job sheets in the complaint, but copies thereof have been produced on record. After going through these job sheets/vehicle history sheets, it is made out that steering problem noticed only on 26.09.2018 and not before that. Being so, prima facie material produced on record establishes that steering problem erupted on that date, when vehicle travelled distance of 76452 Kms. This fact is obvious from vehicle history sheet available at Page 21 of the complaint. As in the earlier job sheets/vehicle history sheets mention of steering problem is not at all made and nor pointed out by complainant, during the time of his visits and as such it is obvious that steering problem came in existence after warranty period, when vehicle had already travelled more than 76000 Kms. Such defect after coverage of such mileage may occur either due to mishandling or due to driving of vehicle on rough roads etc. Being so, defect in steering by no stretch of imagination prima facie can be termed as manufacturing defect. Moreover, no report of expert annexed with the complaint for proving this manufacturing defect. Even date as to when manufacturing defect in the steering alleged is not at all mentioned by complainant in the complaint or in the enclosed affidavit or in any other document except vehicle history sheet of date 26.09.2018 referred above. Being so, defect virtually occurred after warranty period only.
5. Copy of vehicle history sheet dated 13.03.2016 shows that second free service was rendered on that date, when car travelled distance of 5006 Kms. At that time wheel alignment was done alongwith required second free service. Vehicle history sheet dated 24.01.2016 shows as if dry washing service alongwith other job services were done. Mention of second free service again made in the vehicle history sheet dated 13.03.2016. Check and date of 30.03.2016 referred in another vehicle history sheet dated 30.03.2016 and as such this vehicle history sheet available at Page-11 of the file virtually aims at rendering second free service in continuity of the earlier rendered service on 13.03.2016. Vehicle history sheet dated 25.05.2016 available at Page-12 establishes rendering of 3rd free service of setting of cylinder alongwith other services rendered, but not of the steering. No mention of steering problem made in this history sheet or in the subsequent history sheet dated 17.07.2016 available at Page-13 of the complaint. On 17.07.2016 body repair service was rendered. Engine oil was changed on 28.05.2016, but no reference of steering problem in this history sheet made and nor the same made in the vehicle history sheet dated 11.10.2016 vide which service of wheel balancing alongwith that of repair of roof light was rendered. Even vehicle history sheets dated 28.05.2017 and 11.10.2016 available at Page-15 shows as if PMS 40 and PMS 30 services were rendered with respect to lamp assessory, screen wash, cabin air filter etc. No mention of problem of steering or problems connected therewith made in any of these vehicle history sheets. Same is the position with reference to vehicle history sheet dated 23.09.2017 available at Page-16. Rendered services on 23.09.2017 were regarding stereo oil or of broken bumper. In the vehicle history sheet dated 23.09.2017 available at Page-17 running repair was done like that of screen wash, change of oil filter etc. Running repair further was done on 05.10.2017 as per vehicle history sheet available at Page-18. Likewise in the subsequent vehicle history sheets of dates 27.01.2018 and 10.08.2018 available at page 19 and 20 it is mentioned that services of replacement of rear wiper blade or of setting of stop lamp or of bulb replacement etc. alone were rendered. No reference of steering problem made in any of these history sheets, but reference of steering column problem made for the first time in vehicle history sheet dated 26.09.2018 available at Page-21. So it is obvious that steering problem came to the knowledge of complainant only on 26.09.2018 and before that same was not existing. As this problem came in existence after expiry of warranty period and as such complainant bound to pay for availing such services. So if OPs demanded Rs.60,000/- for repair of steering, then they did so in their right of providing services on chargable basis after the warranty period. So it is not a case of deficiency in service on part of OPs at all. Rather complaint seems to be filed for abusing process of law or for harassing OPs unnecessarily and as such complaint deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself.
6. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint dismissed at admission stage itself. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per rules and thereafter file be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
August 14, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
