Delhi

East Delhi

CC/549/2013

PRAMOD KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMPETENT AUTO - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 549/13

 

Shri Pramod Kumar

R/o 115, J-Extn.

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                         ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.

(Authorized Maruti Dealer)

Plot No. 3, Ghazipur

Opp. East Delhi Mall (EDM)

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Regional Office (North-I)

Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070                                    ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 15.07.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 03.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 07.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Pramod Kumar against           M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2), praying for replacement of car, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and            Rs. 33,000/- cost of litigation. 

2.       The facts in brief are that on 05.02.2013, the complainant purchased a Swift Dzire car bearing no. DL 2CAP 8346 from                  M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) on paying an amount of    Rs. 7,65,287/-.  The delivery of the vehicle was made on 14.02.2013.  On setting the summer, when AC of the vehicle was used, it was found that it was working properly in the stationary position of the car, but does not work properly when the vehicle was in running condition at the speed of 50-60 KMPH and its cooling effect remained very poor.

          On 14.04.2013, the car was sent to M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) for rectifying the AC problem.  It was handed over back to the complainant with the assurance that the AC would function properly.  It has further been stated that having used the AC for around 20 days after carrying out the repair of the AC, there was no improvement in the effectiveness of the AC.  The car was again sent to M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) on 04.05.2013.  On the same day, the complainant also sent an email to Shri Vikas Gupta, Territory Service Manager of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2) requesting him to look into the matter regarding performance of the AC of the car and to get the same resolved.  It has been stated that technical staff of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) informed the complainant that one valve of the AC was leaking and the same has been changed and gas of the AC was also topped up.  The complainant took the delivery of the car with the hope that AC would function properly.  Even after replacement of the vale and topping up of the gas of the AC, there was no improvement.

          The complainant, on 18.05.2013, again reported the car to      M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) for rectifying the problem of the AC.  When the vehicle was not returned till 24.05.2013, the complainant sent a legal notice on which M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) informed the complainant telephonically to report the vehicle to their workshop.  The complainant informed that the vehicle was already with the company.  The complainant went to the workshop on the advice of Territory Service Manager of OP-2 on 08.06.2013 along with another Swift Dzire car bearing registration no. DL-13-CA-4932, for comparing the performance of its AC.  Performance of ACs of both the vehicles was observed by Works Manager Mr. Manoj Kumar and one Service Executive of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) and they found that AC of the car of the complainant was not working properly.  The complainant was not informed as to when the problem of the AC will rectify.  However, he received a call on 07.06.2013 and when he visited the workshop on 08.06.2013, he found that the problem remained the same.  He emailed these facts on 09.06.2013 to           Shri Vikas Gupta and requested him that without vehicle, he was facing problem. 

On 09.06.2013, Shri Vikas Gupta emailed to the complainant and expressed his sincere apologies.  He also informed that he has directed Mr. Suri, GM of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1) to get the problem of AC rectified on priority and revert to him. On 15.06.2013, complainant again visited the workshop to take the delivery of the vehicle.  He was handed over job card retail invoice dated 12.06.2013 in which the work done was mentioned as “AC GAS CHARGING AND LEAKAGE TESTING”.  Before handing over the vehicle to the complainant, technical staff of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. (OP-1) forced the complainant to sign a satisfactory note.  Having no option, the complainant had to sign the satisfactory note.  However, he has stated that even after taking the delivery, the cooling of the car was poor at the speed of 50-60 KMPH.  Thus, he has stated that inspite of having informed the OPs with regard to the performance of the AC of the car in the stationary position and at the speed of 50-60- KMPH, the OPs have not rectified the same.  Hence, he has stated that there has been deficiency on the part of OPs and have prayed for replacement of the car with a new one of similar model/features with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and pain and financial loss along with Rs. 33,000/- towards litigation charges.

3.       In the reply of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that AC of the vehicle was working in perfect condition and was having no manufacturing effect.  They were merely authorized dealer of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2).  M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2) was the manufacturer of Maruti vehicle and car AC was manufactured by M/s. Subros Ltd.  They being the dealer, they were not responsible for any manufacturing defect of AC.  The complainant brought his vehicle on 19.03.2013 at Ghazipur workshop for free service at 291 mileage and for second time on 14.04.2013 with the complaint of AC and on checking, it was found that there was no problem in the vehicle. Vehicle was checked several times and on inspection on 26.05.2013, it was found that “AC COOLING CHECKED, GRILL TEMP CHECKED FOUND 9.1*C IN AMPLANT TRMP-46*C”. 

On 12.06.2013, complainant again visited the workshop of OP for the same problem.  For the satisfaction of the complainant, AC performance was checked in the presence of M/s. Subros, Sandan Engineers and MSIL TSM        (Mr. Vikas Gupta).  They remarked “That the contents of para no. 5 are vehemently wrong and denied in view of submission made in para no. 4.  It is denied that any valve was changed of the vehicle of the complainant and there was no improvement in the cooling effect of the vehicle.  However, it is correct that complainant brought his vehicle on 18.05.2013, with respect to AC problem.  Answering Op checked and found “AC cooling OK” there was no such problem as is stated by the complainant in his complaint.”   Thus, they have stated that AC of the vehicle was working perfectly.  They have denied other facts but in nutshell they have stated that on checking the AC it was working properly.

          In the reply of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that the complaint was bad for mis-joinder of the parties as     M/s. Subros, Sandon Engineers were not made as a party.  The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim for compensation.  The complaint was baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law.  The vehicle was checked on all stages before launching.  It has also been stated that the relationship with their authorized dealer was that of Principal-to-Principal basis and governed by Dealership agreement.  The complainant was not consumer qua  M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2).  It has been denied that there was problem of AC in the vehicle.  AC was found OK and as preset standards and the remarks were marked on the job card.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 and OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited copy of bill for an amount of                 Rs. 7,65,287/- (Ex.CW1/1), copy of job card of dated 14.04.2013 and 04.05.2013 (Ex.CW1/2) and (Ex.CW1/3) respectively, copy of email of dated 04.05.2013 sent to Mr. Vikas Gupta, Territory Service Manager of OP-2 (Ex.CW1/4), copy of job card of dated 18.05.2013 (Ex.CW1/5), copy of legal notice and postal receipts (Ex.CW1/6) and (Ex.CW1/7) respectively, copy of email of dated 09.06.2013 sent to Shri Vikas Gupta (Ex.CW1/8) and of dated 09.06.2013, his reply (Ex.CW1/9), copy of job card of dated 12.06.2013 (Ex.CW1/10), copy of email of dated 15.06.2013 and 24.06.2013 sent by Shri Vikas Gupta (Ex.CW1/11) and (Ex.CW1/13), copy of email of dated 23.06.2013 sent by the complainant to Shri Vikas Gupta (Ex.CW1/12).

          In defence, OP-1 has examined Shri Ranjeet Sinha, Works Manager, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as job card of dated 05.02.13 (Ex.OP-1/1), job card of dated 14.04.2013 (Ex.OP-1/2), copy of invoice dated 07.05.2013 (Ex.OP-1/3), job card of dated 18.05.2013 (Ex.OP-1/4), vehicle history (Ex.OP-1/5) and again job card (Ex.OP-1/6). 

          OP-2 has examined Shri Mittar Sharma, one of their official who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as dealership agreement (Annexure R-2/1), job card and delivery checklist (Annexure R-2/2) and (Annexure R-2/3) respectively, warranty policy (Annexure R-2/4), job card of dated 19.03.2013, 14.04.2013, 04.05.2013 and 18.05.2013 (Annexure R-2/5), (Annexure R-2/6), (Annexure R-2/7) and (Annexure R-2/8) respectively, copy of job card of dated 12.06.2013 and satisfaction note dated 15.06.2013 (Annexure   R-2/9), copy of communication exchanged with the complainant and job card of dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure R-2/10) and (Annexure R-2/11) respectively. 

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd. (OP-1), M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2) and have perused the material placed on record as the complainant did not appear to argue.  It has been argued on behalf of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co Ltd.  (OP-1) and M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP-2) that there was no deficiency on their part as there was no manufacturing defect.  They have also stated that AC of the car was working perfectly. 

They have drawn the attention of the Forum to Inspection Report of Shri Mittar Sharma, who inspected the vehicle on the direction of this Forum and have stated in his report that the inspection of the vehicle was carried out and a road test of the said vehicle was conducted by the engineers of AC vendor M/s. Subros, Sandon Engineers for a stretch of 83 km. at a varying speed of 50KMPH to 70KMPH and cooling found OK.  He has filed this report on affidavit alongwith annexure such as copy of job card of vehicle of dated 17.06.2014 (Annex. R/A) and copy of vehicle history of dated 17.06.2014 (Annex. R/B). 

The only deficiency which have been pointed out by the complainant in his complaint has been in respect of AC cooling, however, if a look is made to the inspection report of Shri Mittar Sharma of OP-2, who have got the vehicle inspected in the presence of            M/s. Subros, Sandon Engineers on the orders of this Forum, it has been noticed that in the report, he has stated that they found that all the parameters were within range and cooling found OK.  They have noted these facts in the job card. 

When the vehicle was got inspected on the order of this Forum and the report has been filed showing that “All parameters within range, cooling found OK”, it cannot be said that there was any AC problem  which led to deficiency on the part of OPs.  The fact that AC was working properly and was found OK, no deficiency on the part of OP can be found.  The complaint is devoid of any merit which deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                            (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                        Member             

     

 

  

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President