Haryana

Sonipat

CC/444/2015

Krishan Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Jai Narain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagmohan Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan Bhardwaj

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.444 of 2015

                                Instituted on:04.12.2015

                                Date of order:26.07.2016

 

Krishan Kumar Bhardwaj Adv. son of Jai Narain, r/o H.No.2/293, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

                                                ...Complainants.

     Versus

1.Jagmohan Motors Ltd., (Maruti Authorized Dealers) Bahalgarh road, Sonepat through its Manager.

2.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Hed office Nelson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Manager.

                                                ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Sh. Sanjay Kankarwal, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Adv. for respondent no.2.

BEFORE-     NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

            SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

            J.L. Gupta……………………………………………………………Member

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased Maruti Swift ZDI car from its first owner Rajbir Singh with all rights i.e. car bearing no.HR04E-0025 and got it transferred in his name on 25.2.2015. At the time of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner has retained his earlier number and new number was issued as HR21J-6775.  The vehicle in question started making unwarned sound from engine and was not working smooth.  The complainant made complaint to the respondent no.1 who made the estimate of repairing to the tune of Rs.22000/-.  The complainant asked the respondent on.1 about the problem and its repair in warranty because this vehicle has extended warranty till 31.12.2015, but this request of the complainant has not brought any fruitful result.  The complainant has also approached the other respondents for repair of his vehicle, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he  has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that three accidents have occurred with the vehicle and warranty period of the vehicle has already been lapsed because the said vehicle was purchased on 31.12.2012 by one Rajbir Singh and according to manufacturing company, the term of the warranty shall be 24 months or 40000 km (whichever occurs first) from the date of delivery to the first owner.  The vehicle in question was brought in the company of the respondent no.1 three times i.e. on 25.6.2014, 25.12.2014 and 26.12.2014 and there was no complaint regarding the vehicle in question.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of the respondent no.2 since the vehicle was sold to first owner by the dealer and not to the complainant.   The said vehicle had met with a major accident and was brought to Unique Motors Pvt. Ltd. for accidental repairs on 28.9.2013 at 20809 Kms.  The repairs and replacement of 105 parts of the vehicle was carried out on paid basis and the total amount for the said repair was Rs.1,45,000/-.   The vehicle was brought to the workshop of respondent no.1 for paid service on 25.6.2014 and it was observed that intercooler was damaged and the complainant was advised to get it replaced on paid basis, but the complainant refused and continued to ply the vehicle in the same condition.  So, the warranty was refused since the complainant violated the terms and conditions as per warranty policy.    The respondent no.2 provides for warranty in case of any defect as per clause 3 of warranty policy for 2 years or 40000 km whichever is earlier.  The complainant did not report for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant is bound with the terms and conditions of the warranty policy.    The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.2.

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Complainant has argued his case vehemently that he has purchased Maruti Swift ZDI car from its first owner Rajbir Singh with all rights i.e. car bearing no.HR04E-0025 and got it transferred in his name on 25.2.2015. At the time of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner has retained his earlier number and new number was issued as HR21J-6775.  The vehicle in question started making unwarned sound from engine and was not working smooth.  The complainant made complaint to the respondent no.1 who made the estimate of repairing to the tune of Rs.22000/-.  The complainant asked the respondent on.1 about the problem and its repair in warranty because this vehicle has extended warranty till 31.12.2015, but this request of the complainant has not brought any fruitful result.  The complainant has also approached the other respondents for repair of his vehicle, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1  has submitted that three accidents have occurred with the vehicle and warranty period of the vehicle has already been lapsed because the said vehicle was purchased on 31.12.2012 by one Rajbir Singh and according to manufacturing company, the term of the warranty shall be 24 months or 40000 km (whichever occurs first) from the date of delivery to the first owner.  The vehicle in question was brought in the company of the respondent no.1 three times i.e. on 25.6.2014, 25.12.2014 and 26.12.2014 and there was no complaint regarding the vehicle in question.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of the respondent no.2 since the vehicle was sold to first owner by the dealer and not to the complainant.   The said vehicle had met with a major accident and was brought to Unique Motors Pvt. Ltd. for accidental repairs on 28.9.2013 at 20809 Kms.  The repairs and replacement of 105 parts of the vehicle was carried out on paid basis and the total amount for the said repair was Rs.1,45,000/-.   The vehicle was brought to the workshop of respondent no.1 for paid service on 25.6.2014 and it was observed that intercooler was damaged and the complainant was advised to get it replaced on paid basis, but the complainant refused and continued to ply the vehicle in the same condition.  So, the warranty was refused since the complainant violated the terms and conditions as per warranty policy.    The respondent no.2 provides for warranty in case of any defect as per clause 3 of warranty policy for 2 years or 40000 km whichever is earlier.  The complainant did not report for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant is bound with the terms and conditions of the warranty policy.    The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record the document marked as JN i.e. invoice cum certificate of extended warranty registration and as per this document, the extended warranty gold was valid upto 31.12.2015 or upto 60000 kms. 

          The complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 4.12.2015 i.e. prior to expiry of extended warranty period which was valid upto 31.12.2015.  So, in our view, the demand of Rs.22,000/- from the complainant regarding replacement of defect part i.e. injector calebration, under warranty period is wrong and unjustified and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents not to demand the amount of Rs.22000/- from the complainant and further to replace the defective injector calebration with new one of the vehicle of the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)   (J.L.Gupta)               (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF                DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 26.07.2016