Haryana

Sonipat

CC/440/2015

Parvesh S/o Virender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagmohan Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Malik

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.440 of 2015

                                Instituted on:02.12.2015

                                Date of order:28.07.2016

 

Parvesh son of Virender resident of H.No.137, Jajjal, Sonepat.

                                                ...Complainants.

     Versus

1.Surender Lakra, Manager, Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Delhi-Bahalgarh road, Sonepat.

2.Regional Head, Regional Office (North 1) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Plot no.1, Nelson Mangela road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70.

3.The Regional Head, Regional Office North IV, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO no.39-40, Sector 8C, Madhyamarg, Chandigarh-160008.

4.The Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon road, Gurgaon-122015.

                                                ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. Rajvir Malik Adv. for complainants.

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

           Sh. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Adv. for respondent no.2 to 4.

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 a new Car make Ciaz  from respondent no.1 on 1.7.2015 worth Rs.9,20,000/- and got it registered vide registration no.HR10-Y/9348.  After use, it was noticed that engine of the said car is not working properly.  The complainant has informed the respondent no.1 in this regard.  There is continuous break down of the said vehicle from time to time.  The engine of the vehicle stopped at once on the road.  The complainant also informed the other respondents through e-mail on 19.9.2015, but of no use. However, the respondent no.1 has assured that in future if any problem occurs, the same will be replaced with new one.  On 5.11.2015, the same problem again has arisen.  The respondent no.1 toe the vehicle.  The complainant has informed the other respondents through e-mail dated 9.11.2015, but of no use and the vehicle is still lying with the respondent no.1 and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, the complainant  has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1, 2 to 4 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that whenever the vehicle was brought by the complainant for service, the same was attended properly as per terms and conditions of the vehicle.  The vehicle is working properly and road worthy condition.   The complainant has made a complaint regarding problem of engine not working. The vehicle was inspected and fuel tank was cleaned and vehicle was running perfectly OK.  Thereafter also, whenever the complainant has visited the respondent no.1 with his vehicle, the same was attended properly.  The defect was removed free of costs under warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition.  Even on 18.9.2015, the respondent no.1 on the request of the complainant called TSM (Expert) of Maruti Suzuki Company, who inspected the vehicle carefully and found the same in OK condition.  The respondent no.1 never assured the complainant regarding replacement of his vehicle with new one.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, the complainant is  not entitled for any relief & compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1.

          The respondents no.2 to 4 in their joint written statement have submitted that the complainant himself is negligent and careless in proper maintenance of the vehicle as he has failed to obtain the 2^nd free inspection service which ought to have been obtained by him at the completion of 5000 kms or 6 months  whichever comes first.  The terms and conditions of warranty are integral part of sale contract and the complainant is bound by the same. Whenever the complainant has brought his vehicle to the respondent no.1, the same was attended properly and defects were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The fuel tank of the vehicle was cleaned and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in OK condition. The respondents cannot go beyond the warranty obligations  and only obligation of them is to replace or repair at is sole discretion any part shown to be defective.  The respondents have denied the fact that the vehicle is lying with the respondent no.1.  Rather the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle and is making purposeful use of the vehicle.  There is no manufacturing defect or any other abnormality in the vehicle.  The complainant has alleged false and baseless allegations against the respondents.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents.  Thus, he is not entitled for any relief and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondents no.2 to 4.

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.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued his case vehemently that the respondent no.1 has supplied the defective and inferior quality of car as the same is having manufacturing defects which are unrepairable.  The complainant has spent Rs.9,20,000/- for the purpose of the said vehicle, but the complainant could not enjoy the new brand car due to manufacturing defects.  The complainant has prayed that the respondents be directed either to replace the defective car with new one or to refund the cost of the car.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that whenever the vehicle was brought by the complainant for service, the same was attended properly as per terms and conditions of the vehicle.  The vehicle is working properly and road worthy condition.   The complainant has made a complaint regarding problem of engine not working. The vehicle was inspected and fuel tank was cleaned and vehicle was running perfectly OK.  Thereafter also, whenever the complainant has visited the respondent no.1 with his vehicle, the same was attended properly.  The defect was removed free of costs under warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition.  Even on 18.9.2015, the respondent no.1 on the request of the complainant called TSM (Expert) of Maruti Suzuki Company, who inspected the vehicle carefully and found the same in OK condition.  The respondent no.1 never assured the complainant regarding replacement of his vehicle with new one.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 to 4 has submitted that the complainant himself is negligent and careless in proper maintenance of the vehicle as he has failed to obtain the 2^nd free inspection service which ought to have been obtained by him at the completion of 5000 kms or 6 months  whichever comes first.  The terms and conditions of warranty are integral part of sale contract and the complainant is bound by the same. Whenever the complainant has brought his vehicle to the respondent no.1, the same was attended properly and defects were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The fuel tank of the vehicle was cleaned and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in OK condition. The respondents cannot go beyond the warranty obligations  and only obligation of them is to replace or repair at is sole discretion any part shown to be defective.  The respondents have denied the fact that the vehicle is lying with the respondent no.1.  Rather the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle and is making purposeful use of the vehicle.  There is no manufacturing defect or any other abnormality in the vehicle.  The complainant has alleged false and baseless allegations against the respondents.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents.  Thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

          In the present case, one thing cannot be ignored that the vehicle of the complainant was new one and various job cards were prepared in respect of the vehicle in question.  In the job card dated 18.9.2015, it is mentioned that engine not starting and the vehicle was parked in the workshop of the respondent no.1 for removal of the defect and it was delivered to the complainant on 26.9.2015.  Similarly the vehicle was left by the complainant in the workshop of the complainant on 5.11.2015 and it was delivered to the complainant on 26.11.2015.  So, due to non-removal of the defects in the vehicle by the respondents, the complainant could not utilize and enjoy his new branded car.  The respondents have failed to produce any record to prove that they ever paid taxi/cab charges the complainant for the period when the vehicle was left by the complainant at the workshop of the respondent no.1.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents to replace the defective vehicle with new one or to refund the cost of the car to the complainant with compensation and litigation expenses etc.

          But this plea of the complainant cannot be accepted as there is no expert evidence or expert opinion from the side of the complainant to prove that the defects of the car are unrepairable, there is manufacturing defect in the car and the same needs to be replaced with new one.  Thus, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions to compensate the complainant by the respondents are given since to some extent the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents only.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.2 to 4 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands partly 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: 28.07.2016