Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 635.
Instituted on : 24.09.2010.
Decided on : 06.09.2016.
Rajiv Bansal, Prop.Akshita Glass, J.P.Colony, Hissar Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Jagmohan Motors, Authorised Dealer, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
- Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon through its General Manager.
……….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: Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
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 car from the opposite party no.1, manufactured by opposite party no.2 on dated 25.05.2010. It is averred that opposite parties offered a warranty of 24 months on the product from the date of delivery of vehicle to the first owner and the same is being extended upto 3rd year on the payment of the charges claimed by the opposite parties. It is averred that the car owned by the complainant started to create problem after a short period of 2 months. The car was got checked at the service centre of opposite party no.1 and there was fault in the engine due to manufacturing defect but the opposite party refused to remove the defect and to replace the engine despite the fact that the vehicle was within warranty period. It is averred that opposite party no.1 started to claim an amount of Rs.60000/- for its repair on the alleged ground that some water has been went into the engine from the water filter. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to repair the vehicle free of cost as the same was within warranty period but to no effect. It is averred that there is manufacturing defect in the car which still persists and is not removed by the opposite parties despite his various visits, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is averred that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the faulty engine of the car or to return the cost of car alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses 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 complainant is estopped from filing the complaint due to his own act and conduct because the complainant himself drove the vehicle in flood water and water entered into the engine of the vehicle and the same resulted in hydrdostatic lock. Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected and repairs were rightly carried out on chargeable basis. On merits it is submitted that the water entered into engine of the vehicle due to negligence of complainant himself and in such case when the negligence is on the part of complainant, there cannot be any warranty. It is averred that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and as such the complainant has no right to raise any claim. It is averred that the amount of Rs.69089/- was charged for engine overhauling and the same was rightly charged. It is averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the OP being manufacturer stands warranty for a period of 24 months or 40000 kms from the date of purchase and extended further on payment of additional premium for 3rd year or upto 60000 kms. form the date of sale of new car, whichever is earlier, after the expiry of primary warranty of 2 years. It is averred that in the instant case the warranty of complainant’s vehicle stands forfeited on 19.07.2010 under clause 4(e) of warranty policy due to defect caused by misuse, negligence, abnormal use or insufficient care as the complainant plied the vehicle in flooded waters whereupon water entered into the engine of the vehicle and resulted in “Hydrostatic Lock”. It is averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and all the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 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.RW1/B and has closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 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 a car from the opposite party no.1 on 25.05.2010, manufactured by opposite party no.2 and there was warranty of 2 years on the alleged car or 40000 kms. whichever occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. It is also observed that as per letter Ex.C2 dated 21.07.2010 there was some problem in the engine of the car but the dealer told the complainant that there will be charges of Rs.60000/- on the repair of vehicle whereas the vehicle in question was within warranty period. On the other hand, contention of opposite parties is that the complainant plied the vehicle in flooded waters whereupon water entered into the engine of the vehicle and resulted in “Hydrostatic Lock” which does not cover under the terms and conditions of the warranty. As such the repairs were carried out on chargeable basis.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the defects in the engine of the vehicle appeared during the warranty period but the opposite parties denied to repair the vehicle free of costs on the ground that the vehicle was plied in flooded waters whereupon water entered into the engine of the vehicle and resulted in “Hydrostatic Lock” which does not cover under the terms and conditions of the warranty. But to prove its contention opposite parties have only placed on record report of dealer Ex.R3 whereby it is submitted that: “Checked & found Hydraulic locking, which does not covers under the warranty as per MSIL norms”. But from this report it is not proved that the reason for hydraulic locking was plying the vehicle in flooded water or that the complainant had plied the vehicle in flooded water.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the defects in the vehicle appeared during the warranty period. As such opposite parties shall remove the inherent defect of the car at their own expenses after taking satisfaction letter from the complainant and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
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:
06.09.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
