BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.114/13.

Date of instt.: 19.06.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 07.09.2015.

Rajinder Kumar (since deceased) s/o Sh. Basant Lal, now representative by L.R’s (i) Smt. Neelam Rani wd/o Rajinder (ii) Robin s/o Rajinder, both are residents of Friends Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Eakansh Motors Ltd. Kaithal, Maruti Authorized Dealer, through its Managing Director.

2. Regional Service, Manager Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Sector-9, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regd. Office Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Chairman.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Seth, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Wagon-R car bearing registration No.HR-08N-7177 from the Op No.1 on 31.03.2012.  It is alleged that in the month of January, 2013 the problem has been developed in the engine of the said car of the complainant.  It is further alleged that after driving 19500 K.M., the engine of the said car heated due to manufacturing defect and also developed problem in steering of the car.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Work Manager of the Op No.1 for repairing the fault in the car and the job-card was also prepared in which the problem of engine heading was mentioned by the mechanic.  It is further alleged that the Works Manager of Eakansh Motors did not remove the defect from the car and also misbehaved with the complainant and alos demanded Rs.20,000/- for removing the defect from the said car.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the answering Op is a dealer of Ops No.2 and 3 and the answering Op used to sell the car in the same condition, as it has been received by the answering Op from the Ops No.2 and 3; that while selling very car, every customer/purchaser of the car is always requested to abide by all the terms and conditions, as given and printed in the Owner Manual, to avail the facilities of the warranty period; that the present complaint is false and frivolous  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop and found the radiator damaged due to external hits, which clearly substantiate careless and negligent use of the vehicle in question.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Ops No.2 and 3 filed the written statement on the same line as of Ops No.1 & 2 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.     

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C23 and closed evidence on 12.05.2015.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA and document Ex.RB and closed evidence on 10.04.2015.  The Ops No.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R2/A to Ex.R2/4 and closed evidence on 10.04.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased a Wagon-R car bearing registration No.HR-08N-7177 from Op No.1 on 31.03.2012.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that in the month of January, 2013 some problem has developed in the engine of said car and after driving 19500 K.Ms., the engine of said car heated due to manufacturing problem.  The complainant approached the Works Manager of Op No.1 for repairing the fault in the car and the Works Manager did not remove the defect rather mis-behaved with the complainant.  He further argued that the defects in the car occurred within the warranty period.  When the Ops did not remove the defects of the car, the complainant got the defects removed from Hind Motor Kaithal, the authorized dealer of Ops No.2 and 3 as is clear from the bill Ex.C15.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant also produced at the time of arguments a photo-copy of the certificate vide which M/s. Hind Automobiles, Kaithal was approved as Maruti Authorized Service Station.  The complainant made request to the Ops for replace of defective engine of the car but the Ops had refused to do so.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that every owner of the car including the complainant was provided with one Owner Manual and the complainant was requested to abide by all the terms and conditions as given and printed in the Owner’s Manual to avail the facilities of the warranty policy.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops further argued that the complainant kept the vehicle driving without ensuring proper level of coolant in the car in question and ignored the malfunction lamp glowing which resulted into alleged engine overheating and this fact clearly substantiated the carelessness and negligence on the part of complainant.  So, he cannot claim the benefit of warranty policy.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also argued that during the inspection, the wiring harness of the vehicle was found tampered and unapproved/local fitments were found fitted in the vehicle which clearly indicates that the complainant got the vehicle attended at some un-authorized workshop and this fact is admitted by the complainant that he got the vehicle repaired from M/s. Hind Motors, Kaithal, which is not the authorized service-centre of Op No.2.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops further argued that the complainant did not adhere the said terms and conditions, so, he is not entitled to claim the benefits of the warranty policy. 

6.     From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the contention of Ops that M/s. Hind Motors, Kaithal is not their authorized service-centre has no force.  From the copy of bill Ex.C15 as-well-as copy of certificate produced, it is clear that Hind Automobiles is an authorized service-station of Maruti from where the complainant got the car serviced.  But further we found force in the contention of Ops that the engine of vehicle can only be overheated if the coolant in the vehicle is not upto proper level and its driver has ignored the malfunction lamp glowing.  So, in the case in hand, there was a gross carelessness and negligence on the part of complainant in checking the coolant level and ignoring the malfunction lamp glowing which resulted into overheating of the engine of the car.  If the complainant had taken a little care, he could stop the engine on seeing the malfunction lamp glowing and could save the engine from overheating but he did not do so.  From the bill of M/s. Hind Automobiles, Kaithal Ex.C15 also, it is clear that the Head gaskit of the radiator of the car in question was changed which clearly shows that there was leakage of the coolant.  The complainant has not impleaded M/s. Hind Automobiles, Kaithla as party in this complaint, who could explain the reasons for overheating of the engine or about any manufacturing defect.  So, there was carelessness and negligence on the part of complainant.  As the complainant has not operated the vehicle in accordance with the instructions mentioned in the Owner’s Manual, so, he is not entitled to the benefits of warranty policy.  The complainant has not placed on the file the opinion of an expert from which it could be proved that there was any manufacturing defect in the car in question and without such a report from expert, it cannot be stated that there was any manufacturing defect.   

7.     Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same accordingly.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.07.09.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.