Delhi

North East

CC/300/2016

POORAN CHAND PANDAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

                                                  Complaint Case No. 300/16

 

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Pooran Chand Pandey R/o H.No.C-3/778, Street No. 14, Circular Road, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.   2.	Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Plot No.3 Gazipur, Delhi-110096   Maruti Suzuki India ltd. Head Office:- 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

02.11.16 09.01.23 13.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 01.01.14 the Complainant purchased a vehicle bearing no. DL 2C AS 6558 worth Rs. 6,43,648/- from showroom of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that in June 2016 Complainant sees the vehicle is melting due to heavy rust from both outer surface and inner sides. In first week of July Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 regarding complaint of said vehicle and reported Mr. K.K. Singh. He took photographs of all areas which were rusting and told that he will sent those photographs to Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 will give reply within 2-3 days and thereafter no interaction was made with Mr. K.K singh and no phone calls were picked by him. On 03.07.16 Complainant sent an email to Opposite Party No.2 regarding the issue and after one week Opposite Party No.1 approached Complainant via phone call and called him at their showroom and when Complainant visited the showroom they took photographs of rusted parts and told him that they will sent those photographs to Opposite Party No.2 company but no response was given to Complainant after that. The Complainant stated that he had sent emails and made phone calls to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 but no satisfactory response was given to him. The Complainant stated that the vehicle in question has an extended general warranty upto 28.12.17 or upto 80,000 kms and from both ways vehicle was in warranty period. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to refund the cost of the car i.e. Rs. 6,43,648/- and interest which has paid to HDFC approx. Rs. 1,50,000/- and 18 % interest on total amount i.e. Rs. 7,93,648/- (Rs. 6,43,648/-  + Rs. 1,50,000/-). He has also prayed for Rs. 1,50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as petition cost.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.1 is merely the dealer of Opposite Party No.2 which delivers the vehicle to customers so manufactured and supplied by manufacturer and in case of manufacturing defect the liability is that of Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that rusting in the vehicle is caused on account of negligence on part of Complainant not taking care of his vehicle and the vehicle care is provided in owner’s manual supplied to Complainant at the time of sale of vehicle. The owner’s manual and booklet have instructions to prevent corrosion and guidelines for cleaning the vehicle. The Complainant may not be cleaning the vehicle properly after washing and the accumulation of water on vehicle might have caused rust in the vehicle. It is further stated that rusting is due to environmental factor/contact with hard water and there is no manufacturing defect.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the vehicle in question had a manufacturer’s warranty for 24 months or 40,000 kms, whichever is earlier and the said warranty concluded on 29.12.15 by efflux of time. The Complainant availed an extended warranty which starts after the expiry of manufacturer’s warranty and is valid upto another 20,000 kms or 1 year, whichever is earlier and submitted that the extended warranty is not a mirror image of primary warranty and the benefit of the same depends on the compliance of the terms of primary warranty and instructions enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. The repairs could not be covered under extended warranty as per Clause 3 (i) being damage due to corrosion of body parts as enumerated in extended warranty. Hence, the repairs were to be carried out on paid basis and the same was duly communicated to the Complainant. 
4.  It is submitted that the obligation of Opposite Party No.2 under the warranty is which is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific as set out in the warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. The Opposite Party No.2 is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e. 2 years or 40,000 kms, from the date of sale and the Complainant has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against the Opposite Party No.2. It is alleged that the problem of rusting in the vehicle was due to use of hard water i.e. environmental factors and not due to any manufacturing defect which was duly communicated to the Complainant.
5. It is further submitted that the Complainant entered into an independent contract for sale of the vehicle in questing to which the Opposite Party No.2 was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same.
6. The vehicle has been sent to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 eight times before the alleged incident and no problem of rusting was ever reported. It is pertinent to mention here that the leading automobiles manufacturer across the globe have been using the ultra-modern technology in their paint process at their factory wherein rusting of body parts due to manufacturing process is next to impossible. The Opposite Party is one of the manufacturers using ultra-modern technology and equipment and robot in its paint shop during the paint process of a vehicle. It is submitted that vehicle so manufactured by it passes through various stages in paint process, which is a worldwide accepted ultra-method for painting of a body shell. The car forming subject matter of the present complaint was manufactured in the state of the art plant of Opposite Party where the painting process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of robots.
7. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 on 17.07.16 and rusting problem was reported as demanded repairs. Upon inspection It was observed that the alleged rusting was due to environmental factors i.e. using of hard water in washing of the vehicle and not due to any manufacturing defect and the repairs in such a case could not be covered under extended warranty. The Opposite Party No.2 prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

8. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

9. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

10. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri P.B. Suri, CGM of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Shri Vipin Rai Mittal, Territory Service Manager of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statements of respective Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

11. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by parties. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle developed rusting problem on account of manufacturing defect and the said problem was not rectified by the Opposite Parties despite the fact that the vehicle was within warranty period. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that there is not manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the rusting problem in the vehicle was due to environmental situation or use of hard water for washing/cleaning the vehicle. Now the question is that whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The onus to prove this fact is upon the Complainant. However, in order to prove this fact the Complainant did not file any evidence such as report of any Expert/Engineer to show that the rusting problem of the car was due to manufacturing defect. Therefore, the assertion made by the Complainant cannot be accepted. The complaint is dismissed.
12. Order announced on 13.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President