Haryana

Ambala

CC/122/2018

Deepak Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

GM Modern Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Amrik Singh

09 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint case No.:  122 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution  :   13.04.2018.

                                                          Date of decision     :   09.04.2021                     

Deepak Kaushal son of Shri Ramesh Chand Kaushal, resident of House No.38 DWS Colony, Jalbera Road, Ambala City.

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

1. General Manager, Modern Automobiles, Adjoining to Model Town Crossing, G.T. Road, Ambala City.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd-1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, Plot No.1, Phase 3-A, IMT Manesar, Gurugram-122051.

                                                                            ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Smt. Amrik Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.4,82,066/- paid by the complainant for the purchase of car alongwith interest @12% per annum.
2. To pay Rs.27,000/- paid for the registration of car, Rs.6,974/- paid for extension of warranty and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him
3. To pay Rs.22,000/-as litigation expenses.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that in the month of May 2017, the complainant had purchased a New Swift LXI car through the OP No.1 vide invoice No.VSL17000102 dated 10.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.4,82,066/-, out of which Rs.1,47,000/- was paid in cash and loan was availed from Vijay Bank, for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- which was to be paid in monthly instalment of Rs.7,351/- each. Thereafter, he paid Rs.6,974/- for extension of warranty, Rs. 27,000/- as registration expenses and Rs.17,306/- for getting the said car insured from National Insurance Company Ltd. The said car was purchased for the personal use, thus he is a consumer as per provision of Section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. OP No.1 is the Dealer doing its business in the name and style of Modern Automobiles, Ambala City and deals in the sale and purchase of Maruti Suzuki cars. After taking the delivery of the said car, he started plying it on the road. On 07.10.2017, unfortunately, while driving the said car, its engine got totally damaged, when it had run only for 4000 KMs. He contacted the OP No.1, its officials told him to bring the car at their workshop, as there is no one to provide him road side assistance. On 09.10.2017, he towed his car to the workshop of the OP No.1, for repairs. The work Manager namely Shri Sanjeev Sharma told him that the total cost of repair  of engine will be about 1 lac and out of which complainant has to pay 20% and rest of the amount will be paid by the OP No.1. He asked the OP No.1, about the reason of damaged of the engine, who replied that even he does not know the reason. It was very painful for the complainant to get repaired the engine of his new car in the very first year. Complainant asked the official of OP No.1 that, if there is any manufacturing defect in his newly purchased car, then he is not liable to pay any amount as it was under warranty. OP No.1 kept the car of the complainant in their workshop for a long time and did not repair the same. As per invoice-cum-certificate of extended warranty registration dated 10.05.2017, the said car of the complainant is under warranty upto 09.5.2021, or  80,000 KMs, whichever is earlier. But the car of the complainant has neither completed 80,000 KMs nor crossed the warranty period i.e. 09.5.2021. The said car is lying in the workshop of the OP since 9.10.2017, but the same has not been repaired so far without any rhyme and reason. He visited the OP No.1 on several time for redressal, but its staff has not given any cogent response which reveals that the behaviour of the staff of the OP No.1, is not positive towards its customers. On 28.10.2018, complainant filed a complaint with the OP No.1, which was duly received it, and it gave a vague reply stating therein that water entered in the engine leading to the engine failure, which is factually wrong. As the month of October, is not a rainy season and no water entered in the engine of the car. Complainant used to drive his car with all precautions and the OP No.1 has given a vague and misconceived reply just to avoid its liability. Complainant had raised the loan from the Vijay Bank, Ambala to purchase the said car, but it is lying with the OP No.1 at Ambala City. By selling a car, having mechanical & manufacturing defect, the OPs have committed deficiency in services. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.                 Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and concealment of material facts. On merits, it is stated that there is no question of any manufacturing defect, it is a case of consequential loss, which is not covered under the policy. On 07.10.2017, the engine of the vehicle got damaged as water entered in the engine and complainant brought the car for its repair to the workshop of the OP No.1 on 09.10.2017. A loss of about Rs.1 lac was assessed. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty, as water entered in the engine of the said car and warranty became void as such no amount was payable to the complainant. However, the OP No.1 asked the complainant to pay  20% of the cost of repair and offered him to pay the rest of the amount as a goodwill gesture, but the complainant refused to accept the offer. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.       Upon notice, the OPs No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version and has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment of material facts and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of the Maruti Suzuki India Limited i.e. OPs No.2 & 3 have its relations with its dealers on Principal to Principal basis as per the dealership agreement. As per clause 5 of the dealership agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe for represent itself as such. On 09.10.2017, complainant took his vehicle to OP No.1 for its repairs. The said vehicle was inspected by the OP no.1 and it was found that vehicle was damage due to entry of water in the engine causing HYDROSTATIC LOCK hence the repairs could not be done free of costs under warranty as per Clause 4(5) as enumerated in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. However, as a goodwill gesture the OP No.1 gave a offer to the complainant to pay 20% of the cost of repair and rest of the amount will be paid by it, but he refused to accept the offer. The complainant did not give the approval to carry out the repair and abandoned the vehicle at the workshop of OP No.1. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.                On dated 22.11.2018 complainant tendered his affidavit CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure-9 and requested for a date for tendering more documents. However inspite of availing many opportunities the complainant could not tendered the evidence, accordingly, the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order vide order dated 06.12.2019. Learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Chander Shekher, GM of Modern Automobiles Town Crossing, Ambala City and affidavit of Shri Harsh Bangarh working as Maruti Suzuki India Limited (formerly known as Maruti Udyog Limited) having its registered office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110 070 respectively as Annexure OP1/A & OP2,3/A along with documents Annexure OP2/1 to OP2/13 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

6.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased the car in question from the OP No.1 vide invoice No. VSL17000102 dated 10.5.2017. From the invoice-cum-certificate of extended warranty Annexure C-3, it is evident that the extended warranty platinum taken by the complainant is valid upto 09.05.2021 or upto 80,000/- Kms, whichever is earlier based terms & conditions of the warranty. The engine of the car in question got defected within 5 months from the date of its purchase, when it had covered the millage of 4,000 Kms only. Since, the engine of the car got defective within warranty, therefore it was the bounded duty of the OPs to rectify the defects either by repairing or replacing the engine, free of cost, but the OPs refused to do so. Complainant is thus entitled to get back Rs. 4,82,066/- i.e. the price  of the car.  

7.                The Ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the vehicle got defective as water entered in its engine. As such, warranty became void and OPs were not liable to repair the said vehicle, free of costs. However as a goodwill gesture the OP No.1 asked the complainant to pay only 20% of the total repair charges and rest of charges will be paid by the OP No., but he refused to accept the offer.    There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, as is evident from the expert report. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed with costs.

8.                 It may be stated here that on filing of an application dated 31.01.2019, by the complainant, for inspection of the vehicle in question from some expert, this Commission, on 23.04.2019, ordered to get the vehicle in question inspected from the panel of experts of Automobile Engineering and Research Wing of Punjab Engineering College, University of Technology, Chandigarh. From the bare reading of letter dated 09.08.2019, received from the aforesaid institute, it is abundantly clear that the experts have opined that there is no problem in the vehicle and they had smooth ride during test drive. In this view of the matter, the contention of the complainant that the vehicle in question is having inherent manufacturing defect cannot be accepted. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits; consequently, we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :09.04.2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)          (Ruby Sharma)                 (Neena Sandhu)

            Member                       Member                             President