Order-18.
Date-23/09/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant booked a new Maruti Alto 800 LXI car from the OP1 on the condition that the car will be made ready for delivery latest by 26-06-2014 and for that purpose complainant paid a token amount of Rs.5,000/- in cash under money receipt no.V/01784/2014-15 dated 20-06-2014 and further a down payment of Rs.40,955/- was made on 23-06-2014 via online transfer having money receipt no. V/01880/2014-15 dated 24-06-2014.
But OP failed to provide copy of money receipt for down payment made by the complainant and copy of car insurance to Axis Bank on 23-06-2014 until the complainant interfere in this matter on 25-06-2014. Lastly, OP failed to deliver the car on 26-06-2014 and the same was delivered on 29-06-2014 evening. However, as per vehicle history report obtained by the complainant from the regional office of OP2 on 21-07-2014 the date of sale of car is 26-06-2014.
At the time of delivery, complainant noticed that the finish of the paint of car is not smooth in entire body of the car and on verbal complain of the complainant car was washed at showroom of OP1 and was informed to the complainant due to dust that happened and would be removed automatically by post 3-4 wash. On the very next day i.e. on 30-06-2014 in the morning during sunlight complainant realized that there are several scratches/marks on the body of car specially on the bonnet, side panel (both side), doors and roof of the car and even there are few white patches on the body of the car and the car having defect in the paint was supplied by OP1 and the complainant was unable to identify at the time of delivery because it was around 5.00 – 6.00 p.m. in the evening when the delivery of the car was maed and as well as it was drizzling. Thereafter, complainant communicated the issues over phone to the customer care division of OP2 and requested them to send an independent engineer for the purpose of inspection of car. The details of conversation held can be checked, as OP2 records all the calls made at customer care division for quality purpose. Customer care division of OP2 advised the complainant to report the said issues to the dealer (OP1) and if no action is taken then they will take steps accordingly. Complainant immediately informed about the issues and the details of conversation held with Customer care division of OP2 to the sales executive and customer care manager of OP1 over phone and it was informed that as the Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) of the vehicle was pending such issues were there. Once PDI is completed, these issues will not be there anymore. Complainant on 07-07-2014 placed his vehicle based on the prior conversation held with the officials of OP1 at British Indian Street Workshop of OP1 and based on the requisition of customer care manager to drop a mail to dealer and the company about the issues faced in the car, the complainant has made the mail accordingly.
On 08-07-2014 OP1 delivered the car but the condition of the car remained same and also complainant found that the spares, first aid kit, air freshener which were provided along with car at the time of delivery was missing that was informed to Mr. Pintu Halder, DGM – workshop/bodyshop of OP1. Based on the re quest of Mr. Haldar not to put this on mail, it was not at all reported to anyone else.
That the condition of the car remained same, complainant contacted Mr. Sandeep Nandan – TSM of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (OP2) and explained about the issues faced by the complainant in his newly bought car. Based on complainant request, Mr. Nandan visited complainant’s office along with Mr. Pintu Haldar, representative of OP1 on 14th July, 2014, to inspect the car and had also taken few photographs. While conducting inspection of complainant’s car, Mr. Nandan verbally informed that the issues relating to paint is not from the side of the manufacturer (OP2) but that happened only due to improper handling of the car at the dealers end (OP1).
Thereafter, complainant replaced his car on 17-07-2014 at the British Indian Street workshop of OP1 for carrying out necessary work to sort out aforesaid issues and the same was again delivered on 18-07-2014, but the condition of the car remained same, and there were several scratches on the body of the car. During this visit of the complainant’s car, a previous key ring which was there with the key of the car was found missing and the complainant reported the same in writing at the time of taking delivery of the car from the aforesaid workshop and regarding missing of the precious key ring from the complainant’s car General Manager – Service of the said workshop of OP1 and Mr. Nandan of OP2 were also contacted on the said date prior to taking delivery of the car but both were unable to provide proper explanation for the said happening.
Subsequently, OP again inspected the said vehicle jointly on 23-07-2014 along with the dealer representatives and company officials and informed that re-painting is the only solution mitigating the issues which are there in the car but the complainant has refused to get the car re-painted on the ground that when a new car has been purchased, then why complainant shall accept the re-painted car and as well as what was the reason for supply of such car having defect in the paint. On 05-08-2015 Ms. Senjuti Ray, customer care manager and Mr. Pintu Haldar, DGM – workshop/bodyshop of OP1 visited the complainant’s office and informed the complainant that in order to close this issue they can replace the entire body of the car except roof and side panel and this can be done with complainant’s permission and there will be no repainting of any of the body of the car. Not only this, an undertaking will be provided that in future whenever the complainant’s agree or gives permission, roof and side panels will be re-painted without any cost along with this a compensation would also be offered in case this mechanism works out.
On the basis of their said proposal as made and to sort out the issue for replacement of certain parts of the body of the car, without getting it re-painted subject to the condition that the reason for supply of such defective car would be provided and as well as compensation will be granted for such happening. OP1 on 25-08-2014 offered an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation which the complainant refused on the ground that the quantum of compensation is too low as compared to the time spent for sorting out the issues and also for suffering loss.
Since, then the complainant has made several calls, sent various emails, even visited the regional office of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., OP2 to sort out these issues, but it is not sorted out. That the condition of the car or loss which has been suffered by the complainant was only due to the negligence and mishandling of the car by the OPs and on 17th September, 2014 complainant through his lawyer issued a letter dated 16-09-2014 to all the OPs stating the entire facts and circumstances and requested to sort out the issues within 10 days from the date of receipt of letter but they did not respond. In the above circumstances for negligent, deficient manner of service and deceitful act on the part of the OPs and for harassment complainant filed this complaint to direct the OP to immediately arrange for key ring which was stolen at workshop of OP1, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the damage suffered by the complainant and for the valuable time spent behind the same, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for delay in delivery of the car and for litigation cost.
On the other hand, OP1 by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is false and fabricated but it is admitted that on or about 19-06-2014 complainant booked a Maruti Alto 800 LXI BS IV from the OP1 being an Authorized Dealer of other OP and there was no specific understanding between the complainant and the OPs or any of them that the said vehicle would be delivered within 26-06-2014 and such a claim of the complaint is false and fabricated.
The said vehicle was financed by Axis Bank Ltd. and after completion of the procedure by the said bank and after submission of requisite documents by the complainant, like corporate identity card and residential proof etc. the said vehicle was made ready for delivery on 30-06-2014 and in this regard it is pertinent to mention that the identity card was required by the answering OP for corporate discount and the residential proof was required for registration of the vehicle.
On the morning of 29-06-2014 complainant called up the representative of the answering OP and asked for the delivery of the said vehicle and the said representative explained to the complainant that prior to delivery of the said vehicle it was practiced and procedure of the answering OP to carry out a pre-delivery inspection and to wash the said vehicle. Since 29-06-2014 was a holiday, personnel of the OP who would have carried out such washing and pre-delivery inspection was not present. Furthermore, due to absence of such personnel, the necessary documents that were required to be handed over to the complainant also could not be done. So, the complainant was requested to take delivery of the said vehicle on the next day i.e. 30-06-2014 but complainant did not agree to such request and demanded that the said vehicle be delivered to him on 29-06-2014 and on such demand being made, the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 29-06-2014 after washing. Due to absence of the personnel, the documents of the said vehicle could not be handed over to the complainant on 29-06-2014 and after checking and satisfying himself as to the condition of the said vehicle, the complainant took delivery of the said vehicle. Thereafter, complainant raised alleged disputes as to the condition of the paint on the body of the car and alleged scratch marks over it. Despite such disputes being raised after taking delivery of the said vehicle OP maintained good relations with the complainant, caused the necessary service of the said vehicle without any additional cost. Complainant, thereafter, raised an allegation that his key-chain worth Rs.2,600/- to Rs.2,800/- left in the said vehicle, was allegedly stolen during servicing of the vehicle and on receiving such complaint, a cheque of Rs.3,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant by the OP1, however, such cheque could not be encashed and OP1 is ready and willing to issue another cheque for the aforesaid amount in favour of the complainant. It is further submitted that in the event if it is found that there is any defect in the body or paint of the said vehicle such defect can be cured by the answering OP. However, time and again the complainant has not given consent to repaint the said vehicle.
It is also pertinent to mention that Maruti Gift Accessories (MGA) worth Rs.5,000/- has been issued in favour of the complainant. However, till date the same has not been utilized by the complainant. it is submitted that there is no consumer dispute involved in the instance case and as such the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed and entire complaint is false and fabricated and there is no question of considering the vexatious complaint by this Forum and it must be dismissed.
Fact remains OP2 appeared by filing power on 14-05-2014, copies of complaint including documents were served to the OP2 and he was given chance to file written version by 25-05-2015 but on 25-06-2015 they did not appear and did not file any statement so, the case proceeded on contest against OP1 and ex parte against OP2.
Decision with Reasons
On an indepth study of the complaint and the written version and also considering the materials on record it is found that OP Dewar’s Garage Ltd. admitted that vehicle was delivered on 29-06-2014 after washing but document of the vehicle could not handed over on that date but after checking of the condition of the vehicle complainant took delivery of the vehicle.
OP1 further admitted that complainant raised allegation that key chain was stolen during servicing of the vehicle and on receipt of such complaint a cheque of Rs.3,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant but that was not encashed by the complainant but OP1 is willing to issue another cheque amount in favour of the complainant for the purpose.
Further OP has admitted that regarding defect in paint can be cured by the OP and OP again and again requested the complainant to send the car for repairing the said defect but complainant did not place the same for which it cannot be cured.
It is also admitted by the OP1 that Maruti Gift Accessories(MGA) worth Rs.5,000/- has been issued in favour of the complainant but till date same has not been utilized by the complainant and OP is willing to hand over the said accessories.
Considering the admission of the OP and also the entire materials it is found that regarding defect in the paint is admitted regarding loss of key chain is admitted and regarding accessories given by the Maruti has not been utilized by the complainant is also admitted. So, considering the admission of the OP1 it is found that a new car was purchased by the complainant is admitted fact but some painting damage was detected in the new car and OP1 is willing to cure that damage. Then we find that on the basis of the admission of the OP1 we may allow this compliant against OP1 at the same time OP2, the manufacturer of the said Maruti Car who has not appeared and also not denied the fact of damaged paint of the new car but it is not expected that a new car shall be delivered by its dealer with damage paint of the body of the car. So, it is also the liability of the OP2 to hand over the said car after removal of such paint defect because it is the duty of the manufacturer to hand over the car without any external damage of the paint. So, OPs are also liable for removal of such paint defect of the said car.
Considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer we find that Ld. Lawyer of the complainant tried to convince that in such a case replacement is the only relief but after considering the entire fact it is found that there is no manufacturing defect, external paint defect cannot be said to be a manufacturing defect because a car is required to be painted after lapse of 5 years and paint was damaged due to dealer’s use in the meantime till delivery of the said car. So, considering that fact we find that factory finished colour of the car should be done by the OPs 1 and 2 jointly and both the OPs1 and 2 shall hand over the said car after removal of entire damaged colour of the said car by curing the same by fresh painting like company’s finished colour of the car and in this regard OPs1 and 2 shall do the same after receiving the said car and also shall have to give a good service of the said car and thereafter, they shall have to hand over the same to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the said car from the complainant and for the period of one month (during stay at OPs Service Centre) as because complainant shall have to bear cost for his journey the OP1 shall have to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation. If OP1 fails to comply the order and fails to give properly company finished colour of the car within that time by delivering the same to the satisfaction of the complainant along with a certificate of the Company that the colour of the car is finished like company finished colour in that case OP1 shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakh to the complainant. Further OP1 shall have to pay Rs.3,000/- for loss of the key chain and also shall have to hand over the accessories of worth Rs.5,000/- and if accessories cannot be handed over to the complainant in that case a further sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by the OP1 within one month from the date of this order.
In fact OPs 1 and 2 shall have to comply the order within one month from the date of this order and in default the OP shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum. Accordingly as per above spirit of the order the present complaint is allowed against the OP1 on contest with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and same is allowed ex parte against OP2 of Rs.2,000/-.
OPs1 and 2 shall have to carry out the order very strictly within one month from the date of this order otherwise the penal measure shall be taken against them as already stated in the body of the judgment and OPs1 and 2 shall have to comply the order as stated in the body of the judgment accordingly, within one month from the date of this order otherwise they shall have to pay such penal damages, costs, compensation and even if it is found that the OPs are reluctant to comply the order in that case they shall be prosecuted u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
Thus the complaint is allowed on contest against OP1 and ex parte against OP2 with cost as per spirit of the judgment.
