IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member 

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 129/2012

Thursday, the 30^th day of June, 2016

Petitioners                               :         Krishnakumar K.R.

                                                          S/o. K.K. Rajappan,

                                                          Kattinasseril (H),

                                                          Kidangoor P.O. Pirayar Kara,

                                                          Kidangoor Village,

                                                          Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam.            

                                                          (Adv. Joshy Jacob & Adv. Archana K.K.)

                                                                                 Vs.     

Opposite Party                        :  1)    Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd.

                                                          Also known as Maruthi Udyog Ltd.

                                                          Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon,

                                                          Haryana -122015.

                                                          (Adv. Zakhier Hussain)

                                                    2)  Chief General Manager (Service)

                                                          Maruthi Suzuki India Limited,

                                                          Also known as Maruthi Udyog Ltd.

                                                          Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon,

                                                          Haryana –122015.

                                                     3) Popular Sales and Services,

                                                          Authorized Dealer for Maruthi Suzuki

                                                          India Ltd.  12^th Mile, Pala,

                                                          Kottayam, Pin- 686 575.

                                                    4)  Popular Sales and Services,

                                                          S.H. Mount P.O. Kottayam – 686 016.

                                                          ( for Op 3 & 4Adv. B. Ashok and

                                                          Adv. Ahees S.)

                                                    5)  Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd.

                                                          Authorized Dealer for Maruthi Suzuki India

                                                          Ltd. Manipuzha, Nattakom P.O.

                                                          Kottayam – 686 013.

                                                         (Adv. Aboobacker P.K. and Adv. A. Sunitha)

O  R  D  E  R

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

          The case of the complainant is as follows.

          He had purchased a Maruthi 800 A/C car on 07/04/2008 from the 3^rd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and the same was registered as KL-35-A-59.  On the 1^st day itself while driving back to the complainant’s house, he did feel that the steering wheel was stiff and needed more force for driving the car.  The complainant thought that, it might be due to the reason that the car was a new make and gradually that would looses and will be smooth to handle the steering wheel.  But sooner that later the compclainant had realized that the car was having a side pulling to the left when the steering wheel was left free on driving.    Then the complainant reported the matter to the 3^rd opposite party and it was told that the side pulling problem was due to the slope of the road and if any problem was found that should be reminded when the car was entrusting with the 4^th opposite party at the time of 1^st service.  When the car was entrusted back to the complainant after the 1^st service, by the 4^th opposite party the complainant specifically enquired about the side pulling problem. The Service Engineer of the 4^th opposite party drove the vehicle through on the floor of the workshop and certified that nothing was wrong with the suspension or steering.  But the side pulling problem was still slightly persisting when the complainant drove out.  At the time of the 2^nd service too, the complainant drawn the attention of the service personal regarding the side pulling of the car and after the service they repeatedly told that all the problems had been solved if at all existed any problem, while giving back the vehicle.  But the side pulling problem was repeatedly happened.  When the running of the car completed 15,556 km, a big sound was coming from the front portion of the car.  On completing twenty thousand kms. and the car was entrusted for service to the 4^th opposite party on 23/04/2010.  On the basis of a test drive, the Supervisor of the 4^th opposite party informed the complainant that the whole suspension of the car had become compliant and that has to be replaced and which would cost a sum of Rs.3,000/-.   By that time, the warranty of the car was expired.  No such suggestion was ever made during the services before the expiry of the warranty period.  But when the complainant met the Service Manager of the 4^th opposite partym he t9old the complainant that it is only needed to replace the bush of the steering as there was no problem to the suspension and he had already directed to change the steering bush.  A cost of Rs.700/- was charged for the same.  Evenafter all the repairing, replacements and services of the vehicle several times, neither of the opposite parties could cure the defects.  The opposite parties could not even find out the reason of the wobbling of the car.  Whenever the complainant made complaints regarding the side pulling or the wobbling with the 3^rd to 5^th opposite parties, they tried to convince the complainant that no such problems would occur in a car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  But the car was having wobbling problem, when the car was driven below 40 kms on any of the year.  Even when the engine is switched off and if the car is having on a slope down road, then also the wobbling problem does exists.  The problems found from the beginning to till date ie. the left side pulling when the steering wheel left free while on driving and presently the wobbling problem of the car are occurred only due to the defect in the manufacturing of the car.  The complainant could rationally conclude that the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties were delivering the defective car to the complainant knowing fully well that it was having manufacturing defect.  Due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainant has sustain loss and damages.  There was deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.

          The notices were served with the opposite parties.  They appeared and filed their version.  The version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is contending as follows.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint on false allegations without any material liability of the opposite parties under the warranty which is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific as set out under warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet.  The opposite parties had discharged their obligations under warranty unequivocally whenever the complainant brought the vehicle for obtaining services during the tenure of warranty.  At the time of obtaining 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free periodic maintenance inspection services the complainant did not report alleged problem nor any abnormality as was observed by the Expert service engineer of the workshop.              The complainant for 1^st time reported alleged problem of the workshop of the opposite party 4 on 20/05/2009 at 8018 kms and alleged tyre pulling was corrected by carrying tyre rotation as specified in Owner’s Manual and service booklet. Admittedly there was no defect in suspension or steering of the vehicle.  The complainant after service took the delivery to his entire satisfaction and without any protest and demur.  The automobile is a mechanical device and when plied may develop any defect or problem.  The alignment and balancing being out of order could be result of driving on damaged roads and other various factors.  The vehicle was in defect free and in road worthy condition.  The complainant after services took the delivery of vehicle to his entire satisfaction and without any protest and demur.  There was no deficiency in services from the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

          The version filed by the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties is contending as follows.  There was no specific allegation of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  The purchase of Maruthi 800 A/C car bearing Reg. No. KL-35-A-59 from the 3^rd opposite prty which was subsequently serviced by the 4^th opposite party.  Whenever the complainant approached 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties with any grievance it was properly redressed with utmost care and attention.  At the time of 3^rd free service, ie. on 20/04/2009, the complainant made a narration to the Service Assistant to check whether there is any side pulling towards left hand side and that too only, after one year from the date of purchase.  No such complaint was narrated by the complainant ever before the 3^rd opposite party.  At tall the free services the alignment of both side wheels had been corrected as a routine work of the service.  Only at the time of 3^rd free service that the complainant pointed out that he feel the problem of left hand side pulling.                              On every occasion the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties done proper service of the car and entrusted it back to the complainant.  In fact in order to cure the defect, the whole suspension of the car which is a spare part unit is to be replaced.  The total parts of the unit cannot be purchased since it came as a unit.  So that it was informed to the complainant that the whole suspension of the car is to be replaced which may cost of sum of Rs.3,000/-.  after consultation with the Service Manager, he arranged to replace the bush of the suspension unit which was the defective part in the unit which was the defective part in the unit which costs Rs.700/-.  When the suspension unit was properly serviced by the opposite parties, the complainant expressed his satisfaction to the service but raised some suspicion that since the supervisor informed that the replacement of the part will cost Rs.3,000/- and on enquiry the said cost was reduced to Rs.700/- is due to some malpractice by the opposite parties 3 and 4.  Eventhough, thereafter no sound was come from the front portion of the car and the complainant was satisfied with the test derive done in his presence.  Thereafter the complainant never approached the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties for any service alleging that the defects still continuing.  there was no deficiency in services from the side of the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

          The complainant filed Proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A12 and he was examined as Pw1.  The Expert Commissioner’s report was marked as Exts.C1 and C2 and he was examined as Pw2.  The opposite parties submits that they have no oral evidence.  The complainant filed argument note.

          Heard both sides.  We have gone through complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides.  The case of the complainant is that the Maruthi 800 A/C car became defective even after a few days of purchase.  According to him, the defects was continuously occurred during the free services.  The opposite parties taken a contention that there was no such defects in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant.  According to the opposite parties as and when the complainant approached with the car for services, they attend all services with satisfaction of the complainant.  The Expert Commissioner’s report C1 and C2 will clearly shows that there was some defects in the car.  But the Commissioner categorically stated that the alleged defects were curable.  From the available documents and evidences, it can be seen that the alleged defects in the car was curable defects and not for incurable defects.  From the Expert Commissioner’s report C1 and C2, it can be seen that the car was having some defects and the same was not cured properly by the opposite parties as when approached the complainant to the opposite parties.  So we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows.

1. We direct the opposite parties to cure the defects in the vehicle as free of costs with the satisfaction of the complainant.
2. We direct the opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant.

          Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.  The Order not complied within one month, the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of Order till payment.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2016.

          Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member     Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President             Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member                   Sd/-

Documents of petitioner

Ext.A1  :  Photocopy of RC book (KL-35-A-59)

Ext.A2 series:   Print out copies of the e-mail communication (5 nos.)

Ext.A3  :  Office copy of lawyers notice dtd.02/02/2012

Ext.A4 series : Postal receipts (5 nos.)

Ext.A5 series : Postal AD card (2 nos.)

Ext.A6  :  Returned registered letter addressed to 3^rd op.

Ext.A7  :  Job card retail cash memo dtd.30/06/2010

Ext.A8  :  Receipt dtd.17/11/11 issued by 5^th op.

Ext.A9  : Receipt of checking of tyre wobbling dtd.18/11/11

Ext.A10 :  Letter dtd.22/11/11

Ext.A11  :  Power of attorney dtd.16/11/2015

Ext.A12  :  Owners Manual

Witness

Pw1  : Gopakumar K.R.

Pw2  :  K. Chinnakaruppasamy

Commission Report

C1  :  Commission Report dtd. 23/09/14 by Chinnakaruppasamy

C2  :  Commission Report dtd.30/03/15 by Chinnakaruppasamy

Documents of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                          By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent