IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday the 29^th day of April, 2017

Filed on 05.12.2015

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri.  Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in

C.C.No.351/2015

between

Complainant:-                                                                                   Opposite Parties:-

1. Dr. Kumar Chandan                                                                  1.     Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd

Senior Resident                                                                                 Palam Gurgaon Road

  Department of  Orthopedics                                                                        Gurgaon- 122 015

 T.D.M.C.H. Vandanam                                                                                

                                                                                                   2.     Herculies Automobiles Intl(p) Ltd

2.   Varsha Varghese                                                                              CCSB Road, Chungam, Alleppey

  W/o Dr.Kumar Chandan                                                                  Pin:688 011,  Kerala

  LH-1, TDMCH Vandanam                                                           

  Alappuzha-688 005                                                                 3.     Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd

                                                                                                   TUDA Road, Peringavu

                                                                                                   Thiurvambady.P.O

                                                                                                   Thrissur-680022

O R D E R

SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

             The case of the complainant is as follows:-

            Complainants have purchased a vehicle Maruti Celerio VXI on 19/06/2014 with Chassis  No. MA3ETDEIS00107879BF, Engine No. KI0BN7327705(Petrol).  Within one month they realized that their vehicle mileage was very low.  During their due course of first service that staff told that they have rectified the problem of mileage but the vehicle performance was too bad.  While driving they had sense of smell of fuel and on 13-08-2014 early in the morning before going to the hospital the first complainant opened the vehicle’s bonnet and found that there was very massive petrol leak near Fuel Rail Assembly Junction which on further close inspection they found that fuel was concealed with black colour insulation tape.  On further close inspection they found that junction of Rail Assembly and Pipe was rusted and broken and repaired with black  colour insulation tape.  They called popular Vehicle Service Centre (Opposite party 3) but there is no quick response. Then they called manager of 3^rd opposite party and they send service team through 2^nd opposite party and the damage part was replaced by 2^nd opposite party and it was told by service team that this is a temporary adjustment and they will rectify this after two days.  But they did not repair afterwards.  The above mention problem  could have endangered their life.  They lost their piece of mind and their valuable time to serve poor patient of their hospital long with loss of money.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-

2. Version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows:-

It is denied that within one month the complainant had observed that the mileage of the vehicle was very low or that it was reported to the workshop at 1^st service on 17.07.2014.   It is denied that on 13.08.2014 the complainant found out that the fuel rail assembly was broken and it was concealed with black colour insulation tope or that rail assembly and pipe was broken and repaired with insulation tape.  Without prejudice, it is submitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of 2^nd opposite party on 13.8.2014 at 1287kms with the complaint of fuel leakage.  Upon inspection it was observed that there was fuel leakage and it was explained to the complainant hat the breakage in the fuel rail assembly is due to external reasons.  Fuel rail assembly was replaced under warranty to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and the said defect was never reported in the vehicle.  The complainant was duly informed via letter dated 16.8.2014 about the external reasons for the vehicles has been plied for 5428kms.  if there would have  been any defect the vehicle would not have plied for such a distance.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief.

           3.. Version of the second opposite party is as follows:-

           The 2^nd opposite party has not received any complaint about defect in the vehicle.  It can be inferred that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Till date several lakhs of vehicle have been manufactured and sold, which also signifies the highest grade of materials used in the vehicle.  Then it is submitted that  at the time of obtaining 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd free inspection services the complainant did not report the alleged problem and normal service as per periodic maintenance schedule is carried out  to the entire satisfaction for the complainant.  The complainant for the 1^st time reported alleged problem at the workshop. The complainant is making false allegations, suppressing facts and trying to tarnish the image of opposite party.  The complainant is making improper use of vehicle and the cause of alleged problem is attributed to the complaint’s  own negligence. It is submitted that there is no act of omission or commission on the part of the respondent causing any harassment or mental/physical agony to the complainant in any manner.

           4.. Version of the 3^rd opposite party is as follows:-

           The vehicle was given to the opposite party for the 1^st service on 17-7-2014 at 541KM.  At that time, the complainant never reported any complaint on low mileage to the workshop, as alleged, and only the routine 1^st service was done on the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complaint.  This vehicle was attended for 1^st service on 17-7-2014 wherein only routine service was done and no complaint leakage or its repair on the fuel rail assembly was done.  Hence the allegation of finding the fuel rail assembly rusted and covered with an insulation tape etc. are all bare allegation and denied as false.  A complaint of fuel leakage was received from the complainant on 13-8-2014.  Since this opposite party did not have a service centre at Alappuzha and the complaint being of a serious nature which required immediate repair, this opposite party informed the 2^nd opposite party, who was authorized service centre of Maruti vehicles in Alappuzha region to attend the complaint and accordingly the vehicle was taken to the workshop of 2^nd opposite party on 13-8-2014 for rectifying the complaint of fuel leakage.  This being the true fact, the allegation of the complainant that there was no quick response from this opposite party is totally false and denied.  Upon inspection on the leakage complaint by 2^nd opposite party, it was observed that the fuel leakage was due to the breakage in the fuel rail assembly that happened due to external reasons.  Consequently the fuel rail assembly was replaced under warranty to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and delivered the vehicle. There after no complaint or any defect in the repair and replacement has been reported by the complainant in the vehicle so far.

           6. First Complainant was examine as PW1 documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A9. First opposite party was examined as RW1 documents were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B2.  Third opposite party was examined as RW2.

           7. The points for consideration:-

           1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

           2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and cost?

           8.  Complainants purchased the vehicle Maruti Celerio on 19-6-2014.   It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 3^rd opposite party for 1^st service on 17/7/2014.  According to the complainants since the mileage of the vehicle was very low they reported it, during the 1^st service and after the service they assured that they have rectified the  problem of mileage.  But it was totally denied by the 3^rd opposite party.  According to the 3^rd opposite party during the 1^st service on 17/7/2014 the complainant never reported any complaint of low mileage. But they admitted that on 13-8-2014 a complaint of fuel leakage was received from the complaint and 2^nd opposite party was entrusted to attend the complaint and the vehicle was taken to the workshop of 2^nd opposite party for rectifying the defect and 2^nd opposite party replaced the fuel rail assembly.  According to the complainant while driving they sensed the smell of fuel and on 13/8/2014 early in the morning before going to their job they opened the vehicle’s bonnet and found that there was very massive petrol leak near Fuel Rail Assembly Junction and the leaking was concealed with black colour insulation tape.  They further stated that on inspection they found that junction of Rail Assembly and Pipe was rusted  and broken and repaired with black colour insulation tape.  Which cross examing the RW2 he admitted  that “Fuelrail leakage”He also admitted that during the 1^st service there was a complaint of low milaeage. Ext.A8 is the  Job card issued by  2^nd opposite party who attended the disputed vehicle on 13-8-2014.  In Ext.A8 under the tile Recommendations it is noticed that Fuel leak observed from fuel rail assembly (found broken) vehicle inspected by MSIL teams stand by fuel rail fitted in the vehicle.  VOR placed for new parts.  While cross examine RW1 he admitted that petrol leakage is dangerous.  According to opposite party the damage is caused by some external force.  But it was not proved by the opposite party. 

           In view of the above discussion we are of opinion that the fuel leak occurred from fuel rail assembly which was rusted within two months of its purchase.  From Ext.A8  it is also clear that a standby fuel rail was fitted by 2^nd opposite party in the vehicle.  In order to rebut this allegation no documents adduced by opposite party to prove that they have fitted permanent fuel rail.  It cannot be denied  that  when a person purchased a new vehicle from a reputed manufacturer one would expect that it would give him pleasure or trouble free journey for a reasonable period of time.  In the instant case within two months of purchase the petrol leakage  the dangerous defect happened and also found that the important part was rusted and broken and repaired with insulation tape.  In Ext.A8 it is stated that while the rail was replaced with a standby, order was placed for the new one which clearly shows that the standby was fitted for temporary purpose and it is to be replaced with a new one as and when it is received as per the order placed.  The complaints were under the bonafied belief that the standby will be replaced when the new one is received as per the order.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to see that the new one which is received as per the order and to replace the same by informing the complainant.  It is the case of complainant that inspite of repeated reminders the opposite party did not take any initiative to replace the standby with a new one.  All along the period  the complainant was subjected to severe mental agony out of the fear that there may occur petrol leakage till the standby is replaced.  This will also amounts to deficiency in service.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the opposite party 1 and 3 shall jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant an amounts of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by them.

            In the result complaint allowed.  Opposite party 1 &3 are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost the proceedings.  The opposite party 1 to 3 are directed to replace the standby rail with a new one ensuring the good condition and performance.

The order shall be complied within one months from the date of the receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th  day of April, 2017.                                                                                                                              

   Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :

                                                                           Sd/- Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)      :

                                                                           Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            :

Appendix:-

      Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                            -           Dr. Kumar Chandan  

Ext.A1                        -           Tax/Charges Invoice

Ext.A2            to Ext.A5       -           Photographs

Ext.A6                                    -           Copy of E-mail          

Ext.A7                                   -           Copy of E-mail

Ext.A8                                    -           Copy of Job Card detail Cash memo

Ext.A9                                    -           Copy of RC Book

Evidence of the opposite parties:- 

RW1                            -           Geetha Krishnan

RW2                            -           Renjith Babu.R

Ext.B1                         -           Proof affidavit

Ext.B2                         -           Copy of RC Book

// True Copy //                               

                                                           By Order                                                                                                                                      

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- br/- 

Compared by:-