Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 358.
Instituted on : 01.10.2014.
Decided on : 28.07.2017.
Anil Kumar Jain s/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Jain r/o 828/23, D.L.F.Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Managing Director/Chairman.
- Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon through its Managing Director/Chairman.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.M.K.Munjal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Maruti Swift Dezire ZXI. It is averred that on 09.09.2012 there was some defect in the car as the car grear was not moving after starting the car and the complainant went to opposite party No.1 workshop and was shocked to know that clutch plates have been damaged completely and can be changed only. The work was done by the workshop of opposite party no.1 the meter reading of the car at that time was just 3167 kms. The service engineer told that the reason for the said problem is due to normal wear and tear of the clutch parts. It is averred that again on 04.01.2014 the gear of car was not moving after starting the car and the complainant went to the workshop of opposite party No.1 and was again shocked to know that again clutch plates of car have been completely damaged and at that time reading of car was 10702. It is averred that nobody informed the complainant on 10.09.2013 that the defect was in the car clutch plates. After changing the clutch plates, the complainant talked with General Manager of opposite party No.1 and he assured that after talking with the company he will give satisfactory reply but in vain. It is averred that after seven months i.e. on 24.08.2014 again he serviced his car and no defect was informed. But on 02.09.2014 again the car stopped moving as before and the complainant informed the opposite party no.1 and as usual the complainant was shocked to know that the clutch plates are damaged completely and after changing the clutch plates, the complainant sent email to opposite party no.1 dated 08.09.2014. It is averred that after changing the clutch plates actually the meter reading of the car was 17426 kms. Whereas in the bill it was written as 17819. It is averred that the complainant is driving the car since 1984 and the contention of opposite parties that the clutch plates damaged due to clutch over riding is unreliable. It is averred that despite repeated complaints and requests of complainant regarding clutch plates defect and false meter reading no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties. It is averred that the act of opposite parties of supplying the defective cars to their respective consumers is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that both the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.764267/- on account of selling defective car, Rs.500000/- plus Rs.200000/- as mental agony plus Rs.55000/- as cost of complaint to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the complaint is barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased a vehicle on 15.01.2011 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 30.09.2014 i.e. after more than 3 years and 8 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle in question. Hence the complaint is not maintainable being time barred. On merits, it is submitted that on 09.02.2012 the complainant has visited the workshop of answering opposite party. The complaints as narrated by the complainant were noted down and the clutch overhaul of the vehicle in question was done and the clutch plates/disc were changed because the clutch plates were completely damaged. It is averred that the clutch plates are not covered under the warranty period. It is averred that the fault was due to wrong method of driving of complainant as he used to drive the vehicle having continuous foot pressure on the clutch discs/plates. It is averred that complainant again approached the answering opposite party on 04.01.2014 with the same problem and again the same were changed with new one and this time also the fault was due to wrong method of driving of complainant otherwise it was not possible. It is averred that there was no manufacturing defect in the car in question. It is averred that the problems are generally told by the customer and accordingly service of the vehicle is got done. It is averred that on 24.08.2014 the complainant was duly informed about problems in the clutch plates. It is averred that the clutch plates are being damaged due to wrong style of driving. The complainant has visited the workshop of answering opposite party on 03.09.2014 and the clutch discs was changed. It is denied that wrong meter reading was mentioned in the bill. It is averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle given to the complainant was brand new and defect free. All the vehicle which are manufactured are sent to the dealers only after passing the FCOK test. The complainant after satisfying himself with the working of the car had taken the delivery. It is averred that the complainant never reported any problem during the first three services. It is averred that complainant reported the problems of clutch and the repairs were carried out on paid basis since the clutch, disc pads etc. are items of wear and tear and are excluded from warranty as per clause 4(b) of warranty policy. This clearly shows the negligent driving habit of the customer. It is averred that complainant has failed to place on record any material in order to substantiate his claim. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/4, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/5 and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the car from the opposite party No.1 and the same was manufactured by the opposite party No.2. It is also not disputed that the clutch plates of the car become defective and the same were replaced by the opposite parties on paid basis. The contention of the complainant is that there was some defect in the car which was not traceable and the complainant took the said car to the workshop of opposite party No.1 at least more than 20 times and only after that the defect was removed which proved the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and as such he is entitled for compensation from the opposite parties. On the other hand contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is that the defect in the clutch plates of the car was due to negligent driving habit of the complainant and there is no manufacturing defect in the car and that complainant is not entitled to any relief.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the car on 14.01.2011 and the defect in the car appeared on 09.09.2012 and the clutch plates were changed by the opposite parties on paid basis. Again the same defect in the clutch plates appeared on 04.01.2014 and 02.09.2014 and again the same were changed on payment basis. It is also observed that the alleged defect in the car appeared during warranty period but the contention of opposite parties is that the alleged defects do not cover under clause 4(b) of warranty policy. We have also observed the clause 4(b) of warranty policy as mentioned in Ex.R2 as per which : “The replacement of normal; wear parts including clutch shoes, brake shoes, brake pads etc. are not come within warranty”. Hence the complainant was rightly charged for the same. Moreover no other document as well as expert evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2012(4)CLT 240 titled Ajay Sharma Vs. Sanya motors whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Since there was no manufacturing defect in the car, a case for replacement of the car or refund of the sale consideration not made out” and as per 2007(3)CLT 575 titled as Tarsem Kumar Garg Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Hon’ble U.T.Commission, Chandigarh has held that: “In absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed”.
9. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that in the absence of any expert report, the complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect in the car or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
………………………………….
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
