By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Complaint in short is as follows:-
Complainant purchased a MARUTI VITARA BREZA ZDI model car from first opposite party on 21/10/2019 for an amount of Rs.10,26,617/-. The chassis number of the vehicle is 582711 and engine number is 5860075 with blazing red colour. Opposite party delivered the vehicle to complainant after the full payment through hypothecation from Canara Bank. Complainant purchased the vehicle by seeing the advertisement given by opposite party No.3 in news papers and other Medias and they offered so many offers and promises to customers. Moreover they offered 100% warranty and they promised good condition of the engine of the vehicle.
2. When the vehicle had covered 1929 kilometres, it had a breakdown at Puthanathani town while the complainant was travelling along with his family on 04/12/2019 and thereafter it could not be started. Due to this, there occurred a traffic block and the complainant became ridiculed in front of the public. Thereafter it was informed to the first opposite party and they came and solved problem and
assured that there will not be any such problems later.
3. But again on 06/12/2019 at about 3.30 pm the vehicle had a break down at Edarikode junction, a heavy traffic area and thereafter the first opposite party recovered the vehicle and returned the same on 07/12/2019 stating that the vehicle is repaired. But on the same day itself at about 5.00 pm the vehicle had a breakdown again while at Tirur town. When the same was informed to the first opposite party there was no response from them.
4. On 27/12/2019 the battery of the vehicle was changed and the key was corrected, even then the complaints of the vehicle could not be cured. On 15/02/2020 a dangerous sound was heard from the engine side of the vehicle and on verification it was seen that the belt was broken. Complainant informed the same to the first opposite party and they took the vehicle to Indus motors at Tirur.
5. Complainant again stated that the vehicle which was used by him for 4000 kilometres only has already broken down on five occasions. This has caused severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. During his vacations complainant will come to his native place and using this vehicle for his family travels. But the vehicle is not at all useful from the beginning. So complainant is afraid to take the vehicle in heavy traffic areas. So the vehicle is lying idle in garage.
6. Complainant also stated that he has some doubts that the vehicle in question is a vehicle which was in the yard of first opposite party during the flood seasons. So the water entered into the vehicle due to flood. Complainant got information from sources that opposite party No.1 was made sale of this kind of vehicles to so many customers. The regular complaints of the vehicle caused mental agony physical hardship and economic sufferings to complainant. The first and second opposite party and the manufacturer of the vehicle the third opposite party are jointly and severally liable for the loss occurred to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
7. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a new vehicle instead of the above said vehicle, Rs 4,50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
8. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version. After receiving the notice opposite party No.3 did not appear the before Commission and did not file version. Hence opposite party No.3 set exparte. On 24/11/2021 opposite party No.3 filed one IA 468/2021 to receive the version by condoning the delay and to set aside the exparte order. That petition allowed and opposite party No.3 filed version.
9. In their version opposite party No.1 and 2 stated that, they denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those expressly admitted hereunder. They stated that, they are not necessary parties in the above proceedings because they are only dealers of 3rd opposite party. They admitted that complainant purchased the above car from second opposite party. The vehicle was delivered after pre delivery inspection and the vehicle is not having any inherent manufacturing defect or any other defects. The vehicle was tested by the manufacturer and confirms that the vehicle is defect free. The complainant satisfied the condition of the vehicle and took the delivery of the same. But opposite party No.1 and 2 denied the allegation of complainant like offers in the visual media, offered engine condition, the warranty and quality of the vehicle offered by manufacturer etc. They again stated that everyone knows the quality of Maruti vehicles and the vehicle delivered to complainant is also having good quality covered by guarantee offered by third opposite party. They again stated that they are the service centre provide timely service as directed by third opposite party with expert trained technicians with Maruti genuine spare parts.
10. They again stated that the warrantee is offered by third opposite party, the manufacturer during the warranty period shown in the owner’s manual. The complainant is duty bound to observe warranty conditions imposed by third opposite party. The vehicle came for first service on 11/11/2019 and the mileage is shown as 1001 kilometres. The first free service was done and the vehicle was not having complaints. Then complainant produced the vehicle for service with mileage shown as 1930 on 04/12/2019 and vehicle was checked. The complainant complained that battery getting discharged. The complaints were attended and found that battery is not having complaints and battery was charged.
11. Again complainant produced the vehicle for service with mileage showing 2003 on 06/12/2019 and the complainant stated that engine not starting .The expert technician of the opposite party found that battery is not performing. The battery is manufactured by another company and opposite party informed this to them and they promised to replace the same. Spare battery was installed and vehicle was seen performing as it should be. The manufacturer of the battery replaced the battery with brand new one on 27/12/2019 under warranty. The mileage shown in the vehicle was 3120 on 27/12/2019. Complainant produced the vehicle on 15/02/2020 with odometer reading as 3899. Complainant complained about the noise coming from the front portion of the car. The vehicle covered 3899 kilometres without any complaints. The technician checked the belt and the compressor and due service was given and the belt was replaced as demanded by the complainant. There was no noise as claimed by the complainant and the vehicle was in good working condition. The inference gathered from the technician is that complainant is suspicious and he is finding some reason or other to show that the vehicle delivered to him is having defects.
12. Opposite party No.1 and 2 denied all other allegations of complainant. They again stated that they used to give road side assistance to all customers around the clock. The performance of the vehicle depends on the skill of the driver and use of the vehicle by the owner. They are having all facilities to offer proper expert service at any time with road side assistance. The allegation that the key is repaired/corrected is incorrect. The opposite party technicians observed a DTC immobiliser hence requested the customer to bring the second key at the time of delivery. Both keys reregistered and delivered the vehicle to complainant. No repair is done. There are usual software updation will be done at the service centre now and then. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation and there is no deficiency in service from their side. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
13. In their version opposite party No.3 stated that they did not sell their products to any individual under its invoice or sales certificate. Opposite party No.3 sells their product to its authorised dealers. Opposite party No.3 did not render any service or offers to the complainant in so far relating to alleged sale and delivery of the vehicle in question. They stated that the concern in the vehicle arose because of the battery discharged which has been resolved. As duly admitted by the complainant, the vehicle is not used frequently by the complainant as he stays abroad and hence the concern of engine not starting due to battery discharge was faced by the complainant. Complainant is using the vehicle for approximately 12763 kilometres in 24 months (as on 25/10/2021) of purchase of the vehicle. Hence the complaint stands in fructuous and deserves to be dismissed in limine.
14. They again stated that complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint with false allegations and quoting provisions of CP Act without any material on record against opposite party No.3 in order to obtain unjust gains. The vehicle manufactured are duly approved and homologated by the Government authority- International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT). Hence the allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle are devoid of merit. The said concern of engine not starting was due to battery discharged , which is susceptible to normal wear due to use or non-use and which has been duly resolved by opposite party.
15. They again stated that they are the manufacturers of the vehicle who gives warranty on all its new vehicle for a term of 24 months or 40000 kilometres, whichever occurs first from the date of first delivery to the first owner. The said warranty terms are part of sale contract and binding on both parties. However they said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms and conditions . The battery problem was duly attended and was resolved by opposite party No.3 by replacement under warranty at no cost on 27/12/2020 and there upon the said concern has not been reported by the complainant till date.
16. They again stated that, they are manufacturing a wide range of vehicles in accordance with government rule and standards, Rule 126 on CMVR. After the final check ok by opposite party No.3 and pre delivery inspection the vehicle is handed over to the customers. They again stated that , the other allegations of complainant like engine not starting and noise have been resolved as on 15/02/2020 in terms of the warranty and they duly fulfilled the warranty obligations. Hence they are neither a necessary party nor has any role in the said complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and mis-joinder of parties. Complainant is not entitled to any relief from opposite party No.3 as claimed after receipt of repairs under warranty, let alone the replacement of the vehicle after extensive use and exaggerated compensation without any ground .Hence may complaint may be dismissed.
17. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.1 dated 03/03/2020. Ext. A2 is the copy of lawyer notice send by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.2 dated 03/03/2020. Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice send by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.3 dated 03/03/2020. Ext.A4 is the copy of postal receipts received by complainant for sending lawyer notice to opposite parties dated 03/03/2020. Ext.A5 is the registered lawyer notice send by complainant’s counsel which returned to her with an endorsement “Intimation served’’. Ext.A6 is the original reply notice send by third opposite party to complainant’s counsel on 20/03/2020. Thereafter opposite party No.1 and 2 also filed affidavit and documents and the documents produced is marked as Ext. B1. Ext.B1 is the tax invoice issued by opposite party No.3 dated 18/09/2019. Then opposite party No.3 also filed affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext.B2 to B6. Ext. B2 is the copy of the relevant pages of the dealership agreement containing relevant clauses of dealership agreement. Ext.B3 is the copy of relevant pages of owner’s manual and service booklet wherein warranty clauses stipulated. Ext. B4 is the copy of job card dated 04/12/2019. Ext.B5 is the copy of job card dated 06/12/2019. Ext. B6 is the copy of job card dated 27/12/2019.
18. Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- If so, reliefs and cost.
19. Point No.1 and 2:-
Case of the complainant is that on 21/10/2019 he purchased a Maruti Vitara Brezza Car worth Rs.10,26,617/- opposite party No.1 had a break down at Puthanathani within one and half months of the purchase of vehicle. Thereafter it is a regular practice and the vehicle had breakdown on five occasions when complainant used the vehicle for 4000 kilometres. Opposite party No.1 ,2 and 3 filed version and affidavits to prove their case.
20. Opposite party No.1 and 2 stated that, they are not necessary parties in the above proceedings because they are the dealers of opposite party No.3. But they admitted that complainant purchased the above vehicle from second opposite party and the vehicle was delivered after pre delivery inspection and it is found that the vehicle is not having any inherent manufacturing defect or any other defects. They again stated that they are the service centre provide timely service as directed by third opposite party with expert technician and using Maruti genuine spare parts. They admitted that the complainant done all the stipulated services of the vehicle at their service centre, the authorised service centre of Maruti vehicle.
21. Opposite party No.3 stated that, they did not render any service or offers to complainant and they again stated that there is an admission from the side of complainant that vehicle is not used frequently by the complainant as he stays abroad. Hence the concern of engine not starting due to battery discharge was faced by the complainant which happened to normal wear due to use or non use and which has been duly resolved by opposite party. They again stated that the other allegations of complainant like engine not starting and noise have been resolved on 15/02/2020 in terms of the warranty.
22. As per Ext.A1 to A5 documents it is clear that complainant had sent lawyer notice to all opposite parties through his counsel on 03/03/2020, which is within 6 months of the purchase and use of the car. As per Ext. A6 , the reply notice send by third opposite party to counsel of complainant, they admitted that on 04/12/2019 the vehicle was caused a break down and their MOS team attended and after the detailed checking of the vehicle it is observed that ’’ battery getting discharged’’. They again stated that their technician charged the battery by using battery jumper and confirm that no other defects found on the vehicle. Thereafter they admitted that after some days complainant approached them with the same complaint of battery getting discharged and they replaced new battery with two years of warranty. They again stated that thereafter complainant was never approached them with any complaint with this regard.
23. From the version and affidavits of opposite party No.1, 2 and 3, it is clear that there was some problems to the vehicle purchased by complainant from opposite party No.1 and 2 and which is manufactured by opposite party No.3. As per Ext.B4 submitted by opposite party No.3, it is clear that opposite party No.3 also admitted the claim of the complainant that there was some breakdown happened to complainant’s vehicle on 04/12/2019. In that document, the job card provided by opposite party No.1 to complainant, it is seen that on 04/12/2019 , they had done some works relating to battery discharge of complainant’s car. In the complaint filed by complainant he clearly stated that on 04/12/2019 complainant’s car had a breakdown at Puthanathani town while he was travelling with his family and there occurred traffic block. From Ext.B4 produced by opposite party No3 we are on the opinion that complainant submitted a true statements about the breakdown of his new car which was purchased only on 21/10/2019 which is within one and half months of its purchase.
24. As per Ext.B5 submitted by opposite party No.3 which is issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 06/12/2019, it is clear that on that day also complainant’s car had repaired by opposite party No.1 due to battery discharge. In that document the complaint of complainant was “engine not started”. That means on that day also opposite party No.1 repaired complainant’s vehicle and opposite party No.3 submitted that job card before the Commission on that regard. Another allegation of complainant in his complaint was that on 06/12/2019 the car had a break down at Edarikode junction and first opposite party recovered the vehicle from there and returned the same to complainant on 07/12/2019. Complainant again stated that on the same day itself at about 5.00 pm the vehicle had a breakdown again at Tirur town. So from the above documents submitted by opposite party No.3 before the Commission, it is clear that the case of the complainant is true and genuine. It may be battery problem or other negligible problems. But all that happened within one and half months after purchasing the vehicle.
25. As per Ext. B6 submitted by opposite party No.3 which is issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant on 27/12/2019, it is clear that complainant’s vehicle had an issue on that day and opposite party No.1 noted that it is battery getting discharged. In the lower part of the document, on 06/12/2019 opposite party No.1 stated in the remark column that “battery send vendor for warranty .Spare battery fixed.” As per complainant’s case he also submitted that on 27/12/2019 the battery of the vehicle was changed and the key was corrected, even then the complaints of the vehicle could not be cured. Moreover on 15/02/2020 a dangerous sound was heard from the engine side of the vehicle and on verification it was seen that the belt was broken.
26. From the pleadings of complainant and documents produced by opposite party No.3 it is clear that complainant’s car had problems from the beginning itself.
it had breakdown nearly three or four times (as per opposite parties document Ext. B4,5,6) and the vehicle suddenly stopped at high traffic areas and it caused traffic jam also. The documents of opposite party No.3 also reveals that complainant approached them on the dates mentioned by complainant in the complaint. It is sometimes a battery problem as per the documents. But surely complainant and his family facing mental agony and hardship due to that.
27. Opposite party No.1 and 2 admitted that the complainant done all the stipulated services of the vehicle at their service centre, the authorised service centre of Maruti vehicle. They again stated that all parameters were checked and it was found that the vehicle is performing as it should be. After getting the complaint from complainant the battery were charged. Moreover they stated that the expert technician of them investigated the complaint and found that the battery is not performing and they informed about this to the company which manufactured the battery and they promised to replace the same. Thereafter spare battery was installed and manufacturer of the battery replaced the battery with a brand new one on 27/12/2019 under warranty. They also stated that due to the complaint from complainant the belt was replaced.
28. But opposite party No.1 and 2 denied the allegation of complainant regarding that the vehicle stopped on 04/12/2019, 06/12/2019 etc and the dangerous sound came out from the vehicle on 15/02/2020. But we are on the opinion that the document submitted by opposite party No.3, issued by opposite party No.1 and 2 clearly shows that complainant’s vehicle had breakdown on that dates mentioned in the complaint and Ext. B4, 5, and Ext.B6 reveals that opposite parties attended the complaint of battery discharge. So the contention of opposite party No.1 and 2 is not believable. They stated that complainant’s vehicle had no defects. That may be true, but the vehicle had breakdown at heavy traffic areas and they had repaired the battery problem. The job cards reveal the same. The allegation of complainant regarding the correction key is also believable because opposite party No.1 and 2 admitted that their technician observed a DTC of immobiliser hence requested the customer to bring the second key at the time of delivery. They again stated that both keys are re registered and delivered the vehicle to complainant, no repair is done, only usual software updation will be done at the service centre. From the documents and submissions of opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 , we are on the opinion that the battery of complainant’s vehicle had defects and the vehicle suddenly stopped at heavy traffic areas. Hence there is clear deficiency in service from the side of opposite party No.1, 2 and 3. But the sudden breakdown of brand new vehicle purchased by complainant from opposite party No.2, serviced by opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party No.3 will surely caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.
29. But complainant did not produce relevant documents to prove his allegation raised by him in the complaint. The first allegation of complainant is that opposite parties made many offers in the visual media and he believed the same and hence he purchased the vehicle. But there is no documents to prove that, he purchased the vehicle by seeing the advertisement in the media and news papers. Complainant did not take any step to appoint an expert to prove that the vehicle he purchased from opposite parties had manufacturing defects. Moreover he did not take any initiative to prove that his vehicle is lying idle in the garage. Commission is unaware about the present condition of the vehicle whether the vehicle is now simply lying in the garage or the vehicle is using by complainant during his vacations. The present condition of the vehicle is very important. It is true from the complaint and documents that complainant suffered a lot due to the battery discharge of the vehicle within one and half months of its purchase. Moreover complainant filed this complaint on 24/06/2020. That is 8th month of the purchase of the vehicle.
30. Another allegation of complainant is that the vehicle delivered to complainant was the vehicle which damaged in floods. But that allegation was not proved by complainant before the Commission. No expert opinion regarding that also. There is no document to prove that complainant ‘s vehicle had manufacturing defects. From documents and submission it is clear that the battery of complainant’s brand new vehicle had defects and hence the vehicle stopped suddenly at the roads. But we have not got an expert opinion to say that complainant’s vehicle had defects. Hence complainant is not entitled to get the vehicle replaced. But he is entitled to get the compensation for the deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties and cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties have no way to escape from their liability by putting all the liabilities to each other. Complainant purchased costly brand new vehicle from opposite parties. Complainant have no idea that the problem of the vehicle is due to the defect of the battery of the vehicle or the defect of the vehicle itself. It is a regular practice that vehicle suddenly stopped at the junctions. That will affect the complainant badly. Moreover complainant is the consumer under Consumer Protection Act. He purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.1 and 2 for an amount of Rs.10,26,617/- which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 . Hence all opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
31. All opposite parties agree that the non starting of the complainant’s vehicle was due to discharge of battery. But opposite parties not properly attended the complaint of complainant. After the third repair they did not respond the call of complainant. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
32. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 6th day of July, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A6
Ext.A1 : Copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.1
dated 03/03/2020.
Ext.A2 : Copy of lawyer notice send by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.2
dated 03/03/2020.
Ext.A3 : Copy of lawyer notice send by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.3
dated 03/03/2020.
Ext.A4 : Copy of postal receipts received by complainant for sending lawyer notice
to opposite parties dated 03/03/2020.
Ext.A5 : Registered lawyer notice send by complainant’s counsel which returned to
her with an endorsement “Intimation served’’.
Ext.A6 : Original reply notice send by third opposite party to complainant’s counsel
on 20/03/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B 5
Ext.B1 : Tax invoice issued by opposite party No.3 dated 18/09/2019.
Ext.B2 : Copy of the relevant pages of the dealership agreement containing
relevant clauses of dealership agreement.
Ext.B3 : Copy of relevant pages of owner’s manual and service booklet wherein
warranty clauses stipulated.
Ext. B4 : Copy of job card dated 04/12/2019.
Ext.B5 : Copy of job card dated 06/12/2019. Ext. B6 is the copy of job card dated
27/12/2019.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
