Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/47/2022

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Joti Parshad - Opp.Party(s)

Salil Sabhlok Adv.

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	47 of 2022
Date of Institution	25.04.2022
Date of Decision	13.06.2022

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office: SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.

                                                           …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1. Joti Parshad s/o Sh. Ram Charan, r/o H.No.3274, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh

  

•  

 

2. M/s Stan Cars Private Limited, Plot No.9, Industrial Area,
   Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director

 

 

…..Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by: Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for the appellant.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 07.01.2022, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (now District Commission-II), U.T., Chandigarh (in the short ‘the District Commission’ only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Parties, with the following directions:-

“Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as observations and law on the matter, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant stands allowed against the Opposite Parties.  The OPs are directed to refund the entire invoice price of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.7,50,303/- (Ann.C-3) to the complainant.  The OPs are also directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing him immense mental agony & harassment by selling defective car, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.50,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.”

 

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant/appellant purchased Maruti Suzuki Ciaz Delta CIR4AV2 Car from OP No.1/Respondent No.2 on 28.06.2018 for an amount of Rs.8,81,926/- including insurance cover, extended warranty etc. vide
   Annexures C-3 to C-6 (colly.). It was stated that Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 gave discount of Rs.90,000/-, Value of complainant’s old City Honda car, was assessed for a sum of Rs.80,000/-.  It was further stated that the complainant also availed car loan of Rs.3,66,161/- from HDFC Bank and the aforesaid car was carrying two years warranty, apart from three years extended warranty availed by the complainant vide Annexures C-7 & C-8.  It was further stated that the said car was got registered vide Registration No.CH-01-BS-4709. It was further stated that within a week of purchase, the complainant noticed during drive that the car was jumping and when it was reported to Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2, they, during first service on 29.07.2018, measured the gap between the tyre & body and found it to be 1.8 cm and then the Respondent No.2 replaced the front right side shocker of the car and intimated that the gap now came to 1 cm. from 1.8 cm. (Annexure C-11).  It was further stated that after replacing of shocker, the vehicle was still tilting towards right side while driving, which was again reported to Customer Care of Opposite Party No.2/appellant, whereupon two officials of Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 visited the complainant and inspected the vehicle on 31.07.2018 and found that the right side of the car was down and left side was up and the matter was also brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2/appellant by sending emails in the month of August, 2018 vide Annexures C-12 to C-18 (colly.), and also wrote about delivery of defective car in question vide Annexures C-16 to C-22 (colly), but no reply was received. 
3. It was further stated that on 01.09.2018, the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 and reported the defect of Right Side tilting of car in question, Underbody noise, Driver side seat noise, steering problem and Paint dots on RHS rear side and on this they replaced both the shockers alongwith complete accessories and handed over the vehicle to the complainant on same day (Annexures C-25 and C-26).  It was further stated that in order to know the reason of these defects, the complainant approached M/s Danish Denting & Painting Works, New Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh, who inspected the vehicle and found that there are certain defects in the vehicle which should not exist in a new vehicle (Annexure C-57).  It was further stated that the complainant also got the alignment of the vehicle done from M/s Auto Care, Sector-45, Chandigarh, who issued Wheel Alignment Report dated 22.09.2018 as well as Certificate explaining the effect of enhanced toe in the vehicle to the effect that it effects the stability of vehicle and it also reduces tyre life (Annexures C-58 and C-59). It was further stated that the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 Workshop on 06.10.2018 and reported Steering Issue, Line in head Light, Under Body noise of Right side, RHS Rear Tyre gap, Door Rubber were cut off, and Paint dots on the RHS rear side.  It was further stated that prior to starting the repair, the Official of Opposite Party No.1 drove the vehicle, in question, for about 6 hours and admitted that there was some Steering defect in the vehicle.  It was further stated that on 07.10.2018, the complainant again visited the workshop of Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 where Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 opened & repaired the steering of car and also cleared the line in the Head Light, Steering Vibration and RHS rear tyre gap was kept under observation (Annexure C-60).  It was further stated that at the time of purchasing a new car in question, the complainant never thought about its frequent repairs which had been done six times by Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 within a short period of 2-3 months from its purchase, depreciating its brand new value.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
4.  The Opposite Party No.1 filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case and also denied that the value of old car of the complainant was assessed for a sum of Rs.80,000/-. It was stated that the total value of Rs.1,30,000/- had been assessed on account of old car as is clear from purchase agreement dated 28.6.2018 vide Annexure C-2 duly signed by the complainant.  It was further stated that answering Opposite Party is only acting on the directions of Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and the same has been selling the vehicles to the customers in the same condition in which they have been receiving them from the Opposite Party No.2.  It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party No.1 is responsible for only providing warranty services during the warranty period from the date of sale of vehicle in question, thus, no liability on account of any defect as alleged by complainant could be fastened upon them. It was further stated that whenever the car in question has been brought to their workshop, it has been duly attended to, proper services was done and whatever problems had been reported by the complainant, the same had been rectified to complete satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that the neither any official of Opposite Party No.1 visited the house of the complainant in response to any problem reported neither there was any gap of 1 cm or 1.8 cm in the tyre, as alleged.  It was further stated that all the parameters checked in the vehicle of the complainant found to be within limit as compared with other vehicles and no abnormality had been found out by their technicians.  It was further stated that the complainant had purchased a Delta Model Car and manufacturing of the said model had been totally stopped by the Opposite Party No.2 and thus, due to non-manufacturing of the said model, no such car model is available in the stock of answering Opposite Party.  It was further stated that there was no difference in the suspension of the vehicle and all the parameters have been found within limit by Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 during the inspection and all the problems as reported by the complainant on 01.09.2018 had been rectified, without any charge. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite Party No.2 filed its reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case, stated that on first free service on 29.07.2018, suspension hard was reported and necessary repairs/replacements was carried out free of cost under warranty; then the vehicle was sent to workshop of Opposite Party No.1 on 12.08.2018 and no problem was reported prior to this visit. It was further stated that on 12.08.2018 the problem of suspension hard was reported as demanded repairs; the vehicle was inspected and it was found to be in perfect OK condition. It was further stated that on 01.09.2018 only the problem of noise from front was reported as demanded repairs and after inspected the vehicle no problem of any kind was found, but for the satisfaction of complainant, front strut assembly was replaced, free of cost, as a gesture of goodwill.  It was further stated that road test was carried out in presence of the complainant and no abnormality of any kind was found.  It was further stated that the vehicle was never sent to workshop of Opposite Party No.1 on 06.10.2018, rather it was sent on 07.10.2018 and only problem of noise from front was reported as demanded repairs and that the other alleged problem has never been reported to any authorized workshop and also it is not out of place to mention here that the vehicle in question has always been attended as per the terms & conditions of warranty and all warranty obligations have been duly fulfilled.  It was further stated that the alleged problem of tilting towards right side has never been reported to any authorized workshop and therefore, the complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim against the answering Opposite Party and in the absence of any proof/material, the averments lacks relevance. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments of Opposite Parties, contained in the complaint.
7. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Party No.2.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
12. The record of the District Commission reveals that the respondent No.1 visited the service centre of the appellant time and again with various complaints like right side tilting of car, underbody noise, driver side seat noise, steering problem, paid dots on the RHS rear side, line in head light, door rubber cut off etc. The respondent No.1 pointed out to the major defect pertaining to the tilting of the car on right hand side due to gap of 1 cm., and the problem of noise coming from underbody, has not been rectified by the respondent No.2. None of the complaints have been redressed at the end of the appellant. The appellant and Respondent No.2 has itself admitted in their reply that the manufacturing of the car in question has been stopped by the company and they have compared the problem of gap in the car in question with other model of the car. Further, the service dealer of the company has not made any arrangement for another vehicle, of the same make and model, which might have been earlier sold to other customers. According to the Consumer Protection Act any “defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.
13. From the above act and conduct of the appellant’s company alongwith service provider i.e. Respondent No.2 has been indulging in unfair trade practice by not providing required service and by rectifying the various kinds of defect, the said vehicle had. Therefore, this Commission feels that the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality and this Commission is inclined to fall in line with the decision of the District Commission and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
15. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.338 of 2022 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 and Miscellaneous Application No.353 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 22 days also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

13.06.2022

                                                               Sd/-

                                       [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

                                                               

                                                                         Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                      [RAJESH K. ARYA]

                                                                                    MEMBER

 

 

 

 

GP