BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 63/2007 Filed on 26/02//2007

Dated: 15..07..2010

Complainant:

B. Syamalakumari, w/o G. Janardhanan Nair, "Shivapriya", KRA/C56, Sahodara Samajam Lane, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 035.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Jagadeesh Khatter, Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd., Jeevan Prakash Building, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

   (By Adv. V. Santharam)

2. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., Near St. Mary's School, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.

    

This O.P having been heard on 03..02..2010, the Forum on 15..07..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant purchased a Maruti Wagon R Car on 18/05/2006 vide Registration No.KL 01 AM 7547, that the husband of the complainant, who is driving the car in question, has been interacting with Indus Motors (2^nd opposite party) on all aspects connected with the car and its maintenance, that all correspondence except a letter dated 26/07/06 on the issue under question was signed by the husband of the complainant, that while driving the vehicle in question it was felt that there was some problem in gear shifting, later experienced gear slippage on two occasions and the harshness in gear shifting persisted, when complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party he was advised to wait till the first service, that the vehicle was produced for first service on 11/07/2006, that during the first service the 2^nd opposite party changed the gear yoke assembly and explained to the husband of the complainant that the changed part only was giving the problem of gear slippage and harshness in gear shifting, that the gear shifting problem persisted and on complaining he was advised that a long trip will solve the problem. Complainant wrote to 1^st opposite party on 26/07/2006 detailing the developments and requesting a replacement, that on 30/8/2006 complainant received a reply dated 13/08/2006, from 1^st opposite party which was dated 13/08/2006, that again on 29/09/2006 complainant wrote to 1^st opposite party detailing what had transacted in between the letter dated 26/07/2006 and 29/09/2006, that on 19/10/2006 a representative of 2^nd opposite party came to complainant's house and took the vehicle which was returned on 20/10/2006 and again on 4/11/2006 complainant wrote to 1^st opposite party expressing dissatisfaction over the total issue, that on 27/11/2006 complainant took the vehicle for 2^nd opposite party, on 22/12/2006 husband of the complainant sent notice to 1^st opposite party expressing his intention to proceed legally, no reply was sent by 1^st opposite party. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to take back the vehicle in question and provide a new vehicle and to pay the cost incurred by the complainant for registration, insurance etc.....

2. 1^st opposite party filed version contending that complainant failed to disclose any specific cause of action for negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade prctice, that the terms and conditions of warranty are integral part of contract for sale of goods, that opposite party's obligation under warranty is to repair or replace any component shown to be defective due to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture, that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, that opposite parties fulfilled their obligations unequivocally and the vehicle in question was in perfect OK condition, that opposite party checked the vehicle and found no abnormality in it, that the complainant has given his express satisfaction in post service follow up, the alleged defect was not point out by complainant during the said repairs, that normal routine service was conducted by opposite parties for which complainant has given express satisfaction. There is no strength in complainant's allegations about the comments, complainant distorted facts to make undue gains on false and frivolous grounds. Hence 1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. 2^nd opposite party did not turn up and contest the case. No version filed by 2^nd opposite party. Hence 2^nd opposite party set exparte.

4. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the car in question was having any manufacturing defect?

2. Whether the defects, if any, found are repairable?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a new vehicle or to get the vehicle repaired?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

In support of the complaint, the husband of the complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and has marked Exts. P1 to P11. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D3.

5. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, complainant purchased a Maruti Wagon R Car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party on 18/05/2006. The very case of the complainant is that while driving the vehicle there was some problem that even after repeated service the problem in gear shifting persisted, that during the first service 2^nd opposite party changed the gear yoke assembly and explained to the husband of the complainant that the changed part only was giving the problem of gear slippage and harshness in gear shifting. According to complainant even after first service the same problem repeated and it was informed to oposite parties, though 2^nd opposite party attended to rectifying the problem still the problem persisted. This Forum deputed an expert Commission to ascertain the details stated in the complaint, commissioner filed report which has been marked as Ext.C1. 1^st opposite party filed objection to Commission Report, while complainant has no objection to Commission Report. As per the Commission Report, the complainant has raised only one problem regarding the performance of the vehicle from the date of purchase, ie; Hard gear shifting. 2^nd opposite party has tried their level best to solve the hard gear shifting problem by changing the gear lever, adjusting the clutch, adjusting the gear box mount base plate, changing the gear selector etc., which was evident from the various job records of M/s. Indus Motors. It is stated in the commission report that as per the statement of the Regional Service Manager of M/s. Maruti Suzuki Company had noticed many similar complaints on the initial models of Wagon R through customer complaints and Field Trouble Reports from the authorised service centres. Subsequently the company has changed the long gear shift lever with a shorter one and has tried to refine the gear box. Commissioner has noticed that hard gear shifting during the first inspection of the vehicle, when the problem was noticed by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties by the commissioner, they have shown their interest and willingness to refine the gear shift problem. Since complainant had no objection to give the vehicle for service and again the vehicle was taken by the Service Centre of M/s. Indus Motors, that the Commissioner has visited the Service Centre with the complainant to review the condition of the vehicle after the repair works. It was noticed by the Commission that the gear box was overhauled, one gear synchronizer was replaced and gear shifter and related components were adjusted. Significant improvement was noticed on the gear shifting during the road test, but the problem was recurring occasionally. The customer has also driven the vehicle, but was not fully satisfied. In the conclusions portion of the report the followings are noted: (1) Wagon R is a well accepted product from M/s. Maruti by the customers of certain features like good seating position, ample visibility, good riding and handing, better fuel efficiency and good response of the 1061 cc four cylinder 64 bhp engine. (2) But many of the Wagon R customers are not satisfied with the poor gear shifting of the vehicle, though company has made many attempts to solve the issue, this was a known factor and was highlighted by the expert road test reports of many reputed Indian Auto Journals. But this problem is not in other products from Maruti. Hence there is a good scope for development of a better gearbox. (4) The customer/petitioner is having the habit of doing the scheduled maintenance of the vehicle in time and the service centre authorities have made their level best to satisfy the customer, but the problem could not be rectified completely. (4) With the existing gear box it is manageable. But replacement of the existing gear box with a new and refined gear box can only solve the existing problem of the vehicle. The initiative for this may be done by the manufacturer's side as customer satisfaction is the most important aspect in any industry. Though opposite party filed objection to commission report. Commissioner was not examined by them. Ext. P1 (a) is the invoice issued by 2^nd opposite party. Ext. P1(b) is the job estimate issued by 2^nd opposite party. Ext. P1(c) is the job order card dated 18/05/2006. Ext. P2 is the job card retail cash memo. Ext.P3(a) is the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party. Ext.P3(b) is the copy of Under Certificate of Posting. Ext. P3(c) is the copy of acknowledgement card. Ext. P4 is the letter dated 13/08/2006 sent by 1^st opposite party to the complainant. Ext. P5(a) is the copy of the letter dated 29/09/2006 to 1^st opposite party. Ext.P5(b) is the copy in lieu of acknowledgement card. Ext. P5(c) is the copy of the job card dated 23/08/2006. Ext. P5 (d) is the copy of the job card retail cash memo. Ext. P6 is the job slip issued by Indus Motors. Ext. P7(a) is the copy of the letter dated 4/11/2006 sent by complainant to Managing Director, Maruthi Udyog Ltd. Ext. P7 (b) is the copy of acknowledgement cards. Ext. P8 is the job card retail cash memo dated 27/11/2006. Ext. P9(a) is a copy of the letter dated 22/12/2006 sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party. Ext. P9(b) is the copy of 'Under Certificate of Posting'. Ext. P9(c) is the copy of acknowledgement card. Ext. P10 is the copy of invoice issued by Indus Motors. Ext.P10(a) is the copy of job card retail cash memo dated 19/09/2006. Complainant has not been cross examined by 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party has produced 3 documents along with proof affidavit. Ext. D1 is the copy of PDI job card. Ext. D2 is the copy of advocate notice. Ext. D3 is the copy of warranty policy. Inview of the foregoing discussion and the evidence available on record we find the vehicle in dispute has the problem of hard gear shift. After rectification of the complaints by the opposite parties in the presence of expert commission the vehicle was handed over to the complainant but complainant is not happy. Thereafter complainant submitted that he is prepared to keep/accept the car as it is and as a gesture of good will if opposite party is prepared to give the discount of 30% in the price of the car along with incidental expenses and cost of the complaint. It is pertinent to point out that there was gear shifting problem which was continued till rectification by opposite parties, in the presence of the commissioner. As per commission report, with the existing gear box it is manageable, but replacement of the existing gear box with a new and refined gear box can only solve the existing problem of the vehicle. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if 1^st opposite party is directed to replace the existing gear box with a new one to solve the existing problem of the vehicle since the said problem was developed within the period of warranty.

In the result, complaint is allowed. 1^st opposite party is directed to replace the existing gear box of the vehicle with a new one. 1^st opposite party shall pay the complainant a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with cost of Rs. 3,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of July, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.63/2007

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Janardhanan Nair

II. Complainant's documents:

P1(a) : Invoice issued by 2^nd opposite party

P1(b) : Job Estimate issued by 2^nd opp. Party

P1(c) : Job Order card dated 18/5/2006

P2 : Job card retail cash memo

P3(a) : Copy of the letter sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party

P3(b) : " of Under Certificate of Posting

P3(c) : " Acknowledgment card

P4 : Letter dated 13/8/2006 sent by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

P5(a) : Copy of the letter dated 29/9/2006

P5(b) : " in lieu of acknowledgement card

P5(c) : " the job card dated 23/8/2006

P5(d) : " the job card retail cash memo

P6 : Job slip issued by Indus Motors

P7(a) : Copy of the letter dated 4/11/2006 sent by complainant

P7(b) : Copy of acknowledgement cards

P8 : Job Card retail cash memo dated 27/11/2006

P9(a) : Copy of the letter dated 22/12/2206 sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.

P9(b) : Copy of Under Certificate of Posting

P9(c) : " acknowledgement card

P10 : " Invoice issued by Indus Motors

P10(a) : " Job Card retail cash memo dated 19/09/2006

P11 : " acknowledgement

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of Job card

D2 : Copy of Advocate notice

D3 : Copy of Warranty policy

V. Court Witness : NIL

6. Court Exts : Commission Report.

PRESIDENT