Date of Filing: 04/05/2011
Date of Order: 16/07/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 16th DAY OF JULY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 859 OF 2011
Sri. B. Somashakar,
S/o. Basawaiah,
Aged About 60 years,
Former Minister For Education,
R/o. # 393, Swabhimana 2nd Cross,
3rd Main, 2nd Block, RMV Exnt.,
Bangalore-560 094.
(Rep. Sri. S.S. Koti, Advocarte) …. Complainant.
-V/s-
1) The Managing Director,
Maruthi Suzuki India Limited,
Car Producing Co. Represented by
Its Managing Director,
R/at: Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi-110 070.
2) Sri. Sheshikumar,
A Deputy Manager,
Works 9945235532
Mondovi Motors Pvt. Limited,
No.132, Wheeler Road,
(Authorized dealer) Cox Town,
BANGALORE-560 005.
(Rep. by Sri. H.C. Muni Reddy, Advocate
For opposite party No.2) …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and to replace the car by a brand new “’A’ Star” car along with compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- or in the alternative Rs.9,85,480/-, are necessary:-
The complainant purchased “A-Star” car bearing No. KA-53-P-1780 from the second opposite party on 11.05.2010 which was a fifth time purchase by the complainant from the second opposite party. From the day one the said car is giving starting trouble. The complainant sent the said car more than five time under instruction from the second opposite party to the workshop. The battery was replaced, but the problem was not solved. Hence the car was sent again for the 6th time to the workshop. The vehicle is retained by the workshop of the second opposite party without repairing nor returning. Hence it is a manufacturing defect. The vehicle is in the custody of the opposite party since 19.03.2011. Notice was issued in this regard.
2(a) In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-
There is no allegation against the opposite party No.1 regarding any manufacturing defect. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as against this opposite party. This opposite party is not a necessary party. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of proper parties. The complaint is based on discharge of battery and the manufacturer of the battery is not arrayed as a party to the proceedings. As per Clause 4(b) the battery is not covered under the warranty. There is no allegation as required under 2(I)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a new vehicle having warranty for 24 months. The vehicle has been purchased from the opposite party No.2 in a good condition. The relationship between the opposite parties interse on principal to principal basis. The complainant did not report the alleged problem at the time of obtaining first free inspection service done on 01.07.2010 at 782 kilometers at the workshop of the opposite party No.2. The complainant has violated the warranty conditions. The complainant has obtained the second free inspection service on 26.11.2010 at 3193 kilometers and pointed battery check, minor adjustments were made. On 24.01.2011 the complainant reported the vehicle to the workshop complaining about no charge in the battery. It was observed and delivered to the complainant on 28.01.2011 to his satisfaction. It was brought to the workshop again on 28.02.2011 with a starting problem. As a customer friendly approach, the old battery was replaced with a new Exide battery though not covered under warranty. It was found that there was a charge leak and consequential battery discharge through the Non-MGA music system and central locking system fixed to the car by the complainant. Thereafter the Non-MGA stereo music system and central locking system was removed and the vehicle was kept ready for delivery on 19.03.2011. In a perfect and defectless condition. The complainant was requested to take delivery of the vehicle but he has not done so. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In brief the version of the opposite party No.2 are:-
The purchase of the car on 11.05.2010 is admitted. At the time of taking delivery the vehicle was fitted with a music system as a complement, generally given to “A Star” customers. The car came to the first service on 01.07.2010 at a mileage of 782 kilometers. It was serviced there was no complaint. The car was brought again on 26.11.2010 at 3,200 kilometers running. The complainant claimed the battery checkup and running slow it was checked there was no problem and it was delivered to the complainant on his satisfaction. On 24.01.2010 the vehicle was brought for battery trouble. It was observed and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 28.01.2011 fully satisfied. On 28.02.2011 the complainant brought the vehicle with starting complaint. The old battery was removed and a new Exide battery was fitted and delivered to the complainant. On 11.03.2011 the complainant complained regarding starting trouble, it was brought to the workshop of the opposite party from the residence of the complainant. This was informed to the first opposite party’s engineer. The service engineer of opposite party No.1 along with the second opposite party checked the battery and electrical connection finally it was diagnosed that the leakage of current and battery discharge was entirely due to the extra accessories i.e., music system and central locking system fitted to the vehicle. The second opposite party with the approval of the engineers of the first opposite party has replaced the old music system and central locking system with a brand new one and kept the car ready for delivery on 19.03.2011 as it was trouble free and the vehicle was starting with half cranck. A letter was sent to the complainant on 19.03.2011 by registered post on 21.03.2011, but the complainant was did not turn up. A phone call was also made to the complainant he did not answer. Another reminder was sent to the complainant on 29.03.2011. To the notice sent by the complainant proper reply was given. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant and the second opposite party have filed their affidavits. The first opposite party filed a Memo stating its version be read as its evidence. The complainant had made an application under Section 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Regarding that by consent an order was made on 30.06.2011. Accordingly a Commissioner Sri. B. Venkatesh Bhat was appointed, he submitted his report. Hence the arguments were heard.
4. The point that arise for our consideration is:-
:- POINTS:-
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) : As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A :-
6. Pleadings are summarized supra the same were read here again. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the opposite party No.1 is a manufacturer of Maruthi Cars and the opposite party No.2 is its dealer and service provider. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased KA-53-P1780 “A-Star” car from the opposite party No.2 which is manufactured by the opposite party No.1 for Rs.4,00,000/-. It is also having warranty of 24 months. It is also admitted that on 01.07.2010 the vehicle was brought to the second opposite party for first free service at a kilometer running of 782 it was serviced and delivered and there was no problem no complaints then.
7. Further it is an admitted fact that on 26.11.2010 i.e., after lapse of 4 ½ months the vehicle was brought to the second opposite party for second free service at a kilometer running of 3,200 and the complainant wanted the battery to be checked since there was slow running. It was checked and the battery was found OK and there was no problem and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle.
8. Further it is an admitted fact that on 24.01.2011 i.e., after two months after the second free service the complainant brought the vehicle for battery trouble it was kept for observation for four days and it was rectified and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 28.01.2011.
9. Further it is also an admitted fact that on 28.02.2011 the complainant brought the vehicle for a starting trouble. To keeping the customer in good humour the opposite party No.2 has changed the battery with a new battery and delivered the vehicle to the complainant.
10. Up to 28.02.2011 from 11.05.2010 there was no starting trouble. There was no other problem admittedly.
11. On 11.03.2011 the complainant complained about the starting trouble. Hence the engineers of the opposite party took the vehicle to the residence of the complainant and the engineers of the first opposite party was summoned. On verification they found that the leakage of current and battery discharge was entirely due to extra accessories fitted to the vehicle i.e., the music system and central locking system. Hence the old music system and central locking system was replaced with the brand new one and it was kept ready for delivery without any trouble since 19.03.2011 and the complainant was informed, but he did not took delivery of the vehicle. That means there was no manufacturing defect.
12. However on the application of the complainant regarding appointment of an expert by consent an order was passed on 30.06.2011 which reads thus:-
“The complainant had made this Application U/sec-13(C) of the C.P. Act, seeking permission to appoint Commissioner to inspect and submit the report, opinion regarding the manufacturing defect of the car and seeking permission to appoint Sri. Venkatesh V. Bhat, Diploma Automobile Engineer, Owner of Sole Tech, Authorized Maruti Service Station, Padmanabha Nagar, Bangalore as the Expert in this regard.
The opposite parties submitted that they have no objection to appoint the said person to inspect the car, which is at the Garage of the opposite party No.2 and to give report. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
01. The Application filed U/Sec-13(c) C.P. Act is allowed-in-part.
02. Sri. Venkatesh V.Bhat, Diploma Automobile Engineer, has appointed as a Commissioner to submit the report on examination of the car in question w.r.t. MANUFACTURING DEFECT.
03. Sri. Venkatesh V.Bhat, Diploma Automobile Engineer, has to inspect the car in question, which is at the Garage of the opposite party No.2 on 07.07.2011 between 11AM & 5PM in presence of both the parties and their counsel, thoroughly examine the car and give the report, whether it has any manufacturing defect or not within the next date of hearing.
04. The expert fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- which has to be deposited by the complainant within 2 days from today before this forum.
05. Issue Expert Warrant returnable by 12.07.2011.
06.Call on 12.07.2011.”
Accordingly Sri. B. Venkatesh Bhat the expert according to the complainant himself he is a person who has been chosen by the complainant as an expert has given the following report:-
That means there is no manufacturing defect at all.
13. From 19.03.2011 till 07.07.2011 there is no problem in the vehicle. The complainant could have taken delivery, but he has not done so.
14. During the course of the arguments it was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that he may be delivered the vehicle for four weeks and if any problem is there he can revert back. Here there is no problem at all as on the day. If the complainant finds any defect re-occurs after taking delivery and using it he is at liberty to approach the opposite parties for rectification of the defect for which this order will not come in the way. If the opposite parties fail to rectify the defect then the complainant is at liberty to raise another consumer dispute for which this order will not come in the way. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to deliver the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-53-P-1780 defect-free car to the complainant within five days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
4. After taking delivery by the complainant and using for two months it if the complainant finds any defect reappearing he may approach the opposite parties for rectification and if the opposite parties fails to rectify the defect then he is at liberty to approach the Consumer Forum for which this order will not come in the way.
5. The opposite parties are directed to comply the above said order as ordered at Serial No.2 above and send the amount as ordered at Serial Nos.3 above through DD by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.
6. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
7. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 16th Day of July 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
