Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/16/32

Mr. Aravind S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd and Others - Opp.Party(s)

G.R Praveen Kumar

25 Jun 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 06.01.2016

                                                      Disposed on: 25.06.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.32/2016

DATED THIS THE 25^th JUNE OF 2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Aravind.S, S/o Shekhar Shetty, Aged about 30 years, #35/A, Ground Floor, Ganesha Temple, Cholarapalya, Bangalore-23   By.Adv.G.R.Praveen Kumar	1         2           3           4	Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Rep by its Director.   Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Office, No.202, 2nd Floor, Embassy Classic, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Rep by its Regional Manager   RNS Motors Ltd., No.202, 2nd Floor, Embassy Classic, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Rep by its Director   Parkishit S’ Bhat, Chief General Manager, RNS Motors Ltd., No.202, 2nd Floor, Embassy Classic, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Also at 2275, Tumkur Road, Gurguntepalya, Yeshwantpur, Bengaluru-560 022.   By.Adv.Prasanna Deshpande-OPs 1 & 2 By.Adv.B.S.Aravinda Babu-OPs 3 & 4

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the Opposite Parties directing to pay compensation for the loss of valuable time and money, mental agony, stress, torture, tension, waste of his valuable time, money and most importantly his wish to lead social life in the society which is valued at Rs.2,50,000/-, to pay compensation for loss & expenditure for hiring private transporters for his day to day business which is valued at Rs.50,000/-, to pay compensation for loss due to damaged, altered, re-painted and defected car running of time the market value of the car has been depreciated causing heavy monetary loss is valued at Rs.1,87,500/-, to pay Rs.12,500/- along with towards the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant and to grant such other reliefs.  

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that 1^st Opposite Party being manufacturer of Maruthi Cars. 2^nd Opposite Party is the regional office, 3^rd Opposite Party is the authorized dealer of Maruthi car and also having service centre in Bangalore, 4^th Opposite Party is the Chief General Manager of the 3^rd Opposite Party. The 3^rd Opposite Party has been advertising that they are the authorized dealer of the Maruthi Cars and quality service provider of the car for their customers. The Complainant submits that he had purchased a Maruthi Omni car from the 3^rd Opposite Party , who is the authorized dealer of 1^st Opposite Party on 9.11.2015. The Complainant had purchased car accessories and got fixed to the said vehicle from the 3^rd Opposite Party on the same day. The said Omni car worth Rs.2,65,780/- excluding registration charges, insurance loan processing charges, loan amount etc., total amounting to Rs.3,87,062/- and car accessories worth Rs.9088/-. The registration number was given as KA-04-MQ 7586, chassis No.MA3EVB11S01626430, Engine No.F8BIN 4830030. The registration smart card is received on 30.11.2015. The Complainant submits that after taking delivery of the said vehicle, he did pooja and he got to know when he was driving that the said car was vibrating/shacking/sounding and also found that the major dent in the top corner sealing. Immediately, Complainant contacted the office of the 3^rd Opposite Party and was undertaken to rectify the same as it was told the same is minor. The Complainant further submits that through one of the known person checked in the online by putting chassis number of the said Omni car as the facility of the same made available to the authorized dealer, it was updated that “roof ceiling work done” to the said chassis number. The Complainant rushed to the 3^rd Opposite Party and Complainant was advised to leave the car for service. The Complainant left the car for service and it was checked and found that the said Omni car is having some defect i.e. defect in back door alignment and big gap, big noise in the side door, roof ceiling damage, fuel gage problem, vibrate and sound while running, major dent in the top corner ceiling and in wiring loom. The inspection was conducted in front of 4^th Opposite Party and Complainant was informed to rectify the same. The Complainant was shocked after hearing the major defect in car as he has purchased the new car out of his hard earned money and taking loan. The Complainant submits that since the major defect in the said car, Complainant has requested the 3^rd Opposite Party through his said to be the authorized person i.e.4^th Opposite Party to replace of Omni car as he has purchased new car. The 4^th Opposite Party and Mr.Suman (executive) along with other persons have tried to convince the Complainant that the entire defect will be rectified by repairing in free of cost and the amount of car accessories which Complainant purchased on 9.11.2015 will be reimbursed. The Complainant further states that when he was heard the news that there is a major defect in the car, he was shocked and undergoing mental harassment and when he is told that the car will not be replaced, it is brought to the notice of 4^th Opposite Party that Complainant has purchased new car and not second hand car and Complainant was sold some defective car by suppressing the true facts that there was defect in the car in order to cheat the Complainant. When the Complainant requested and demanding for the replacement of car, it was assured to speak to the head office and solve the issue. The Complainant was under the bonafide impress that the car would be get replaced. Inspite of Complainant approaching the Opposite Parties several times, the Opposite Parties have failed to give suitable reply to the Complainant quarries or replace the car and also Opposite Parties 3 and 4 have been giving one or the other excuse assuring Complainant to speak to head office in order to replace of Maruthi car as early as possible. The Complainant believing Opposite Party 3 and 4 had kept quiet that will replace with car, but as on today the Opposite Parties have not replaced the Omni car nor given any status inspite of Complainant repeated request and on the other hand, the Opposite Parties are making the Complainant run up and down every day to 3^rd Opposite Party showroom giving assurance to speak to head office in order to replace or Maruthi car. The Complainant further submits that Opposite Parties managed to remove the online update now that “roof ceiling work done”. The Complainant submits that on 24.11.2015, when the Complainant visited 3^rd Opposite Party to enquire about the status, the Opposite Party failed to keep their words and spoke to Complainant in rough manner and refused to replace the car and told that repair can be done. The Complainant by Opposite Parties attitude has been put untold mental harassment and hence Complainant had made a request to Opposite Party 3 and 4 to pay back the amount given by the Complainant for the purchase of the said car, but instead of replacing or repaying the amount Opposite Party 3 and 4 have given him evasive reply due to which Complainant is put to untold hardship. Thus Opposite Parties have committed the breach of trust of Complainant by adopting unfair trade practices in Opposite Parties business. The act of Opposite Parties in giving the damaged, altered, re-painted, and defected car in the place of new car is amount to cheating and they have cornered themselves for the offence punishable under section 420 and 406 of IPC as well.   The Complainant further submits that thereafter without any alternative he got issued the legal notice dt.27.11.2015 to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to replace the Maruthi Omni Car or return the amount of the said products along with damages of Rs.5,00,000/- within 7 days from the receipt of this notice. The notice has been duly served to the Opposite Parties and on receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 replied the said notice on 8.12.2015 by taking some untenable condition and in the said reply the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 themselves admitted that the car was having some problem and the same would be rectified free of cost and apart from replying the notice, the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 had called the Complainant and asked him to visit the service center for a discussion. The Complainant submits that he has suffered a lot due to illegal action on the part of the Opposite Parties and that Opposite Parties are jointly liable to pay damages and compensation due to their negligence and deficiency of service. The Complainant submits that by the negligent, reckless and irresponsible, illogical delay in replacement of car and due to deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite Parties, they are liable under the provisions of the CP Act, for the amounts of compensation as afore-stated. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 had promised the Complainant that they would replace the car and deliver it. However, the Opposite Parties have taken almost two months but still the car of the Complainant is not yet replaced and they have failed to keep up their promise to deliver the car to the Complainant within time and subsequent assured dates, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that they are liable under the CP Act. He has availed the services of the Opposite Party as such he is consumer under CP Act. The cause of action for the present complaint arose on the date of delivery of the car to the Complainant dt.9.11.2015 and on all subsequent dates which promises were made by the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 to the Complainant for the delivery of the new car. Hence, this complaint.  

3.       On receipt of the notice, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and Opposite Parties 3 and 4 did appear and filed the version. The version of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 is total denial in nature stating that there is no any manufacturing defect in the said car. It is also specifically stated that it is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e., 2 years or 40,000 kms, from the date of sale. The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in owner’s manual and service booklet. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on its part. Further submits that there is no any cause of action as against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 much less Opposite Parties 3 and 4. In the instant case, the Complainant has withheld the Owner’s Manual and Service booklet containing the terms and conditions of warranty which are part and partial of sale in question. The said booklet defines the obligations of the Opposite Parties after the sale of vehicle being the manufacturer of vehicle. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are specifically denied that the said vehicle was vibrating/shacking/sounding and there was a major dent in the top corner ceiling. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 further submits that insignificant defects which do not affect the function of the vehicle including without limitation, sound, vibration and fluid seep are excluded from the ambit of warranty as per Clause-4 (13) of the warranty booklet. Without prejudice, it is however submitted that the Complainant did not report any such defect to the workshop at the time of 1^st service on 17.11.2015 at 1326 kms. The Opposite Parties further submits that the vehicle was attended and serviced as per the warranty obligations and the vehicle was delivered to the complete to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. It is specifically denied that the vehicle was having defect in back door alignment, big gap and noise in the side door or that major dent in the top corner or that there was major defect in the vehicle.  The Complainant had made the alleged defect without any basis or technical knowledge. It is also submitted that the vehicle in question is in full use and engagement of the Complainant, but the Complainant has filed this false complaint to get benefits by way of dubious methods.

4.       The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 also submits that without prejudice in Para-7 of the reply to the legal notice, it was stated that “issues raised by him are all minor in nature and assured him that the same would be rectified free of cost as the vehicle is under warranty but expressed its inability to replace your client’s vehicle with a new one” Further submits that relief sought by the Complainant is beyond the ambit of warranty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission have settled the responsibilities of manufacturer during the warranty period and the replacement of car or refund of price of the vehicle is beyond the specific terms and conditions of warranty as set out under Owner’s Manual 7 Service Booklet. Hence submits that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. When such being the fact, the complaint filed by the Complainant is devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The joint version filed by the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 are almost is that of the version filed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. The Opposite Parties 3 and 4 have taken specific defence stating that the Complainant did not left his vehicle with the 3^rd Opposite Party to take up the alleged roof-lining repair work. Further with regard to the door alignment, it was again clarified that by showing 4/5 new Omni cars and explained to him that it is not the big door gap but the design of the door as manufactured by MSIL and after thoroughly inspecting all the vehicles, accepted and withdrew his complaint. As regards the roof liner problem is concerned, the Complainant insisted that he would like to speak to the executives of MSIL. In this context, the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 agreed to arrange a meeting. Thereafter, the Complainant insisted that the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 should give all the accessories on free of cost basis and demanded return of money paid by him. Further, the Opposite Parties 3 and 4 submits that General Manager and Chief General Manager have personally attended and demonstrated him multiple vehicles and explained to him that the issues raised by him are all minor in nature and assured him that the same would be rectified free of cost as the vehicle is under warranty but expressed its inability to replace it with a new one. Hence submits that there is no deficiency of service on its part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.     

6.       The complainant to substantiate his case, filed affidavit evidence and got marked as Ex A1 to A25. On behalf of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, one Srinivasan CS has filed affidavit evidence. On behalf of the Opposite Parties 3 and 4, one Parikshit S.Bhat has also filed affidavit evidence. Though document produced, did not mark. The Opposite Parties The complainant as well as the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 has also filed written arguments. Heard both sides.

           7. The points that arise for our consideration are:

       1) Whether the Complainants proves the deficiency in service on

            the part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief

            sought for?

        2) What Order?

                  

8.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : In the negative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1 :   We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as version of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has made several specific allegations as against the Opposite Parties stating that through one of the known person checked in the online by putting chassis number of the said Omni car as the facility of the same made available to the authorized dealer, it was updated that “roof ceiling work done” to the said chassis number.  It appears that based on the third party opinion, the Complainant came to know in respect of roof ceiling work was done. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4 have specifically denied the allegations made by the Complainant. In particularly, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have taken specific contention that the Complainant ought to have followed the Owner’s Manual and service booklet containing the terms and conditions of warranty which are part and partial of sale in question. Further submits that insignificant defects which do not affect the function of the vehicle including without limitation, sound, vibration and fluid seep are excluded from the ambit of warranty as per Clause-4 (13) of the warranty booklet. However, the Complainant did not report any such defect to the workshop at the time of 1^st service on 17.11.2015 at 1326 kms. This fact is not denied by the Complainant. The only claim of the Complainant is that the vehicle is having the manufacturing defect. Hence, he sought for the replacement by new one. In this context, we do not find any substance in the contention taken by the Complainant as the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 never denied for the service of the said vehicle for the minor repairs, but the Complainant never accepted it. As to know whether the said vehicle (car) having any manufacturing defect are damaged, altered, re-painted are concerned, there is no any expert report before this Forum. In the absence of the expert report, it is unsafe to arrive at the conclusion that the said vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect in the light of the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in FA No.564 of 2011 in the case of Kaparapu Pothuraju V/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., and another, represented by its Managing Director wherein in the relevant Para 16 reads thus:

  16.      It is settled law that the vehicle can be ordered to be replaced only on proof thereof by the purchaser of the vehicle. The appellant tough contended that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle, he had not paid much focus on the aspect and did not examine any expert to the effect. As such the relief for replacement of the vehicle cannot be granted. The appellant failed to show that the complaint of poor pick up of the vehicle was made during the first servicing, second servicing and the third servicing of the vehicle. The burning out of the clutch plates is not covered by the warranty cover and only as a good will gesture the second respondent replaced the clutch plates during the fourth servicing of the vehicle. In absence of contractual liability, the second respondent cannot be found fault with for charging the appellant for replacement of the clutch plates of the vehicle.

In the light of the decision cited supra, we come to conclusion that any efforts put by the Complainant to prove that the said vehicle is defective. Hence, he is entitled to get new vehicle, has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 4.  Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

10.     POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainants is dismissed.

Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 25^th June 2018).

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Aravind S., who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Receipt tax/vehicle invoice
Ex-A2	Sale certificate
Ex-A3	Copy of RC smart card
Ex-A5	Original postal cover
Ex-A5	Car accessories bill dt.9.11.2015
Ex-A6	Certificate of insurance policy
Ex-A7	First free service bill dt.17.11.2015
Ex-A8	Legal notice dt.27.11.2015
Ex-A9-10	Postal receipts & acknowledgements
Ex-A11	Reply notice dt.8.12.2015
Ex-A12	Reply notice RPAD cover
Ex-A13-25	photos

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

Srinivasan CS, who being the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 was examined.

Parikshit S.Bhat, who being the Opposite Parties 3 & 4 was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc-1	Relevant page of booklet
Doc-2	Warranty policy
Doc-3	Dealership agreement
(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER		(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT