DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.9 of 12
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 5.01.2012
DATE OF ORDER: -26-8-2015
Balraj Singh son of Shri Shish Ram, resident of village Chhilar, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani
……Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s Jagmohan Motor through its (i) Service Manager Shri Baldev Anchal and (ii) Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Sales Manager, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
- The Branch Manager, Maruti Suzuki (Jagmohan Motors), Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
- Shri Pankaj Narula Executive Officer(Service) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Mukesh Kharkhia, Adv. for complainant
Shri A.Sardana, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that he purchased a Ritz Car from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.5,23,000/- and was got financed from Mahindera Company. It is alleged that when the car was driven on road it was found defective as the connected road, clutch plate, self starter and battery found defective. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondent company at Charkhi Dadri to solve the problem but in vain. The complainant further alleged that on 29.7.2011 he visited the Jagmohan Motors, Bhiwani with the complaint of self starter and the same was checked and found it was actually defective but he refused to replace the same under warranty and the Manager of the company advised that the same can be got changed by way of its payment. It is also alleged that the engine of the car was also defective as it used to less the mob oil. It is also alleged that as per warranty policy it was mandatory for a period of 24 months or up to 40000 kilometers whichever is earlier to remove the defect or to change the vehicle but they flatly refused to do so. The complainant further alleged that he himself got repaired the vehicle by spending Rs.30,000/- except engine which is very costly. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops, he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that no defect in the vehicle in question was reported during the course of 2nd free service. However, at the time of 3rd service the vehicle was checked by Govind Kumar and as per job card it was reported that connected rod band, clutch plate w/o battery damages and starter motor assay damaged, vehicle dropped in water. Since the above said defects in the vehicle had resulted because of water logging, so the same were not covered under warranty policy or under insurance and customer needed to pay.
Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No.3 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the vehicle was manufactured by the answering OP undergo stringent quality checks at the levels of production. The vehicle in question has also undergone all the checks and only FCOK was given by the answering OP before dispatching it to its dealers. It is further submitted that the dealers carry out pre-delivery inspection including road tests, ensuring perfect OK roadworthy condition of vehicle in question at the time of sale leaving no place for defects in the vehicle. It is submitted that the customer at the time of sale acknowledge the same by signing the PDI/Warranty/Registration Cart at the time of purchasing the vehicle and the vehicle in question had undergone all the above process and was in perfect OK condition at the time of sale. It is also submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of OP No.1 for obtaining 1st and 2nd service on 30.4.2012 and on 25.6.2011 and at the time of inspection the complainant never reported any problem. It is further submitted that the vehicle was road tested in the presence of complainant and every time after services the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle to entire satisfaction without any protest. It is further submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle in the workshop of OP No.1 for 3rd inspection on 29.7.2011 and the vehicle was inspected in his presence and it was found that water entered in engine and resulted in to engine and battery defect and connected road was also found bent. The repairs were to be carried out on chargeable basis. Since the cause of alleged problem was due to negligence and improper use by the complainant, so the repair not covered under the ambit of warranty as per clause of warranty policy but he failed to abide the terms and conditions of the warranty. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of DL, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of Owner’s Manual, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of RC, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of Rejection Note along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Works Manager.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The counsel for the complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint. In support of his contention he referred Car Manual and Service Book Annexure C2 and the rejection note issued by OP No.1 Annexure C4. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission II (2008) CPJ 119 (NC) in case Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. Versus Adulapuram Buchiraju & ots..
7. On the other hand, counsel for Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He referred the Job Card issued from 30.4.2011 to 25.11.2013 and certificate-cum-policy schedule. In support of his contention he referred the following judgments II (2015 CPJ 83 (Punj.) in case Goyal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Alka Sharma & Otrs. and II (2015) CPJ 506(NC) in case Goyal Motors Versus Arvind Motors.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has alleged that some parts of the car was found defective and on 29.7.2011 he visited the OP No.1 for the replacement of the defective parts, but Ops did not replace the parts.
9. On the other hand the Ops have to controvert the pleas of the complainant and have stated that the complainant had drown the vehicle in logged road, hence, under the warranty condition the complainant is liable to pay the cost of the parts because the complainant was negligent and careless to use the car in question.
10. We have perused the Job Sheet dated 29.7.2011 by them the vehicle in question had run 8435 Kms. It has been mentioned in the said Job Sheet that some parts of the car are damaged, the vehicle dropped in water. The complainant in support of his version that the parts of the vehicle were defective has not brought any cogent evidence to prove its allegations. No expert opinion has been obtained by the complainant that the said parts were having manufacturing defect.
11. Admittedly, the said parts have been damaged during warranty period of the car, but no corroborative and cogent evidence has been produced by the parties on the file in support of their respective contentions. Taking in to every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant and against the Ops, No order as to costs.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: .26.8.2015. (Rajesh Jinda)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member
