BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the  3rd  day of  December 2020

Filed on 06.03.2015

PRESENT

Shri V.S. Manulal                                                                                                    President in-charge

Shri V. Ramachandran                                                                  Member

Smt. Sreevidhia.T.N.                                                                                             Member     

C.C.No 163/2015

Between

O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member

A brief history of the case is as follows:

The complainant states that he had purchased a new Maruti Suzuki  Swift VDI Car with Engine No D13 AO403002, and Chassis No.MA3 FHE B1800468046 from the 2^nd opposite party on 10.10.2013 on payment of Rs. 7,16,302/-.  The car was provided with the Registration No.KL-41 H-102 by road transport Department.  Two years warranty was there for the vehicle.

While so the car showed some variation from October 2014, and problems started thereafter.  On 27.11.2014, the complainant noticed engine rising with high RPM and abnormal emission of smoke during the journey.  Thereafter the car was taken to the Sai Service Centre, Koothattukulam.  There they detected major engine problem and promised to deliver the car after 3 weeks after rectification of defects.  The car was kept in their workshop for 33 days and was delivered only on 30.12.14 after replacing many of the parts of the engine.  A spare car for the journey of the petitioner was arranged by the opposite party only on 8.12.2014.  The complainant lost his car facilities for 12 days.  Therefore the complainant sent a registered letter to the 1^st opposite party on 17.12.14 seeking for replacement of the car. But no reply was received by the complainant.  Again on 15.1.15 the car suffered breakdown during another journey. The car was attended by the 2^nd opposite party on 16.1.15 but could not identify the reason for the break down.  Thereafter the car suffered starting problem on 20.1.2015 and the complainant sent a registered letter to the 1^st opposite party seeking for replacement of the car with a new one.  The 1^st opposite party did not reply and the 2^nd opposite party informed that they failed to identify the reason for the abrupt break downs.  The car was covered only 17000 km by then and recurring defects of the vehicle is an inherent manufacturing defects of the car even after repeated efforts from their side.  The complainant alleges that the defects of the vehicle could not be rectified by repair and the recurring complaint has been depriving of the vehicle and it is failure for a long period.  The vehicle was kept in the workshop by the opposite party for more than 35 days on different occasions.  The complainant lost the car facility for a long period due to the complaints of the vehicle.  Therefore the complainant and his family members suffered lots of agony and hardships.  The complainant therefore seeks replacement of the defective car with a brand new one and also for a compensation of Rs.2 lakh for the mental agony and hardships caused to him.

Notices were sent to the opposite parties and 2nd opposite party appeared and filed their version.  The 2^nd opposite party in his version stated that the complaint is baseless and there is not even an iota of truth in the allegations made by the complainant.  It is true that the opposite party accepted that the complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre of the opposite party at Koothattukulam on 28.11.14 alleging the problems of engine raising, high RPM and the abnormal emission of smoke.  On the same day itself the opposite party attended the alleged complaint of the vehicle. Based on the inspection the opposite party observed that the engine parts of the vehicle was complaint and damaged due to high oil consumption.  The fact was reported orally to the complainant on 28.11.14 itself.  The opposite party intimated to the complainant that the engine parts shall be replaced for rectifying the defect and also informed that some time is required for the same.  The opposite party stated that they have explained their procedure to the complainant on 28.11.2014 and informed that the defects can be rectified under warranty.  Firstly the engine must be unmounted, after unmounting the engine it is to be opened to ascertain the damaged parts.  After ascertaining the said parts a detailed report shall be prepared, and sent to the Regional office for approval for replace the parts under warranty.  After getting the approval from the Regional Office, the work can be started.  If any parts are not readily available with the opposite party orders shall be placed before the 1^st opposite party for getting it.  All the procedures were informed to the complainant by the opposite party and the opposite party informed the complainant to do the work under warranty.  On the basis of the inspection done by the engineers of the 1^st opposite party the regional office of the Maruti Suzuki India limited gave approval to replace the engine on normal warranty on 11.12.2014.  Thereafter the opposite party procured the same spare parts from the Central Ware house, Pathadipalam.  On 15/12/2014, the 1^st opposite party placed an order under VoR (Vehicle off Road order) for getting some other spare parts which are not available at Central Ware House. The 1^st opposite party dispatched the said parts ordered  on 16.12.2014 from Delhi and the same was  received by the 2^nd opposite party on 22.12.14. After that the 2^nd opposite party starts to complete the balance works.  On 28.12.14 the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the works are completed and the vehicle is ready for delivery. On that time the complainant informed the opposite party that he shall take delivery of the vehicle on 30.12.2014. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 30.12.2014.

The complainant alleged that the engine of the car suddenly stopped on 15.1.2015 and 2^nd opposite party attended the vehicle on 16.1.15 itself.  The opposite party requested the complainant to give the vehicle for two days for a long test drive but the complainant was not ready for the same.  Initially no complaint was identified by the opposite party during their inspection and due to non willingness of the complainant to hand over the vehicle for two days the opposite party delivered the car on the same day itself.

The opposite party denied all other averments in petition , as regards to the allegation that there is a manufacturing defects in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party further stated that if there is any manufacturing defects in the vehicle the 1^st opposite party shall replace the defective parts under warranty through the 2^nd opposite party or any other dealers of the 1^st opposite party.  It is strongly denied by opposite party that they failed to rectify the defects as alleged by the complainant.  If there is any existing complaints in the vehicle the opposite party shall rectify the same.

The complainant put strict proof with respect to the allegation of the alleged recurring defects; it is strongly denied that there is manufacturing defects in the vehicle of the complainant.  As regards to all the other allegations the opposite party gave para-wise reply denying the averments of the complainant and hence that the opposite party is not liable to give any compensation of the complainant.  We have considered the matter in detail.

 The main points analyzed in this case are

1. Whether the complainant has sustained to any deficiency of service or           unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the same?
3. The cost and relief if any?

The complainant has produced Exbt: A1 to A9 documentary evidence and the opposite party produced Exbt: B1 to B8 which were marked.  DW1 and DW2 were examined in box and their depositions were recorded.

We have examined the matter in detail with records and deposition from both sides.  It can be seen that the complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Swift VDI car from the 2^nd opposite party,  manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The same was having warranty for 2 years. As per Exbt :A1  produced by the complainant, the car was purchased from Sai Service station Wide  cash bill No. KI302273 dated 10.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.6, 01,324/- and along with another bill No.118517 dtd 28.11.2014 which is produced as Exbt: A2.  Car was entrusted to M/s Sai service Pvt. Ltd for repair by the complainant. As per Exbt: A3, a loaner car was given to the complainant on 8.12.14 at 2:30 p.m by the opposite party.  It is seen as per Exbt: A4,which is pre-invoice of service issued by the opposite party 2 for an amount of Rs.3363/- which has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party 2. As per the Exbt: A5, which is a letter of satisfaction signed by the complainant and Exbt: A6 is a receipt given by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.  Exbt: A7 is a job card issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant and Exbt: A8 is a pre-invoice of service issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Exbt: B1 produced by the opposite party is a job card.  Exbt: B2 is a tax invoice cash receipt for Rs.51485/- and Exbt: B3 is  a job card.  Exbt: B4 is a copy of the letter send by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.  Exbt: B5 is the history of the vehicle.  Exbt: B6 is a copy of the letter received from the complainant by the opposite party. Exbt: B7 is a letter of satisfaction on which in it is seen written “that as many parts of the engine were replaced, I demanded to Maruti Suzuki to replace the entire engine or replace the vehicle.  But it is not been done. So, as the customer I am very much disappointed as the vehicle is only around 15000 km run and one year old. Within this disappointment and dissatisfaction, I have received the vehicle from Sai Service Ltd on 30.12.2014” and Exbt: B8 is another job card issued by the opposite party.

Issue No:1

It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Maruthi Suzuki Swift VDI car from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  On going through the records,  and on perusal of the evidences, it can be seen that the vehicle had some problems or defects like engine raising , high RPM and abnormal emission of smoke during journey and therefore the car was entrusted to the opposite party for repair and other services on different occasions.  The 2^nd opposite party had done certain services on the car, but the defects  alleged by the complainant could not be completely cured and it is an admitted fact that the second opposite party had not taken any steps to replace some necessary parts of the vehicle which were essential for curing the defects permanently.  The argument of the 2^nd opposite party that the spares so necessary were not supplied by the manufacturer deserves no merit but amounts to deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party.

The main allegation raised by the complainant is that the vehicle is having an inherent manufacturing defect.  In order to establish the argument of the complainant that the vehicle is having an inherent manufacturing defect, the complainant ought to have produced substantiating evidence or records or the report of examination and findings of an expert. Here in this case, the complainant had failed to produce any evidence or documents or report of any experts or had not made any effort of that kind to establish  the authenticity of the argument regarding an inherent manufacturing defect  of the vehicle before the commission. Hence we are of the opinion that point No.1 is only  partially proved in favour of the complainant and we  haveconsidered point No.(2) and (3) together and the following orders are issued.

In the above circumstances the allegation that the vehicle is having an inherent manufacturing defect could not be proved by the complainant.  But taking into consideration the overall aspects of this case, evidence and circumstances, deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party is proved and therefore  we are directing the opposite party to carry out the service of the alleged vehicle so as to make it into  a fully satisfactory condition free of cost on production of the alleged vehicle by the complainant at the service centre of the opposite party, within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of the order, and to pay an amount of Rs.20000/- towards  compensation to the complainant.  The 1^st and 2^nd   opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible to comply with this order.

Pronounced in the open forum on the 3^rd day of December 2020. 

Sd/-

Shri .V. Ramachandran,Member

Sd/-

Shri V.S. Manulal ,President-in-charge

    Sd/-

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N.,        Member

                                  Forwarded by Order

                                      Senior Superintendent.

APPENDIX

Exbt. A1:       Cash bill No. K1302273 dated 10.10.2013 for an amount

of Rs.66,01,324/-

Exbt. A2 :                  Cash bill No.118517 dated 28.11.2014.

Exbt. A3 :                  The car was given to the complainant at 2:30 p.m on                                                        8.12.14 by the opposite party. 

Exbt. A4:                   Pre-invoice of service issued by the 2^nd opposite party for                                                an amount of Rs.3363/-

Exbt. A5:       Letter of satisfaction signed by the complainant 

Exbt. A6:       Receipt given by the 2^nd opposite party to the                                                                                  complainant.

Exbt. A7:       Job card issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the                                                                               complainant .

Exbt. A8:       Pre-invoice of service issued by the opposite party to the                                                 complainant.

Opposite Party ’s Exhibits:

Exbt. B1:                   Job card. 

Exbt. B2:                   Tax invoice cash receipt for Rs.51485/-

Exbt. B3:       Job card. 

Exbt. B4:                   Copy of the letter send by the 2^nd opposite party to the                complainant. 

Exbt. B5:       History of the vehicle. 

Exbt. B6:       Copy of the letter received from the complainant by the                                                  opposite party.

Exbt. B7:       Letter of satisfaction where it is seen written that “As                                                        many parts of the engine were replaced, I demanded to                                      Maruti Suzuki to replace the entire engine or replace the                                        vehicle. But it is not been done. So, as the customer I am                                             very much disappointed as the vehicle is only around                                                            15000km run and one year old. Within this                                                                                      disappointment and dissatisfaction, I have received the                                           vehicle from Sai Service Ltd on 30.12.2014 “.

Exbt. B8:       Job card issued by the opposite party.

Depositions:-

DW1        - Shri T.C Stephen.

DW2        - Shri Biju V.K

Despatch Date:

By hand :   By post: