Complaint filed on: 16-08-2011
Disposed on: 30-07-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.1508/2011
DATED THIS THE 30th JULY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Ram Sajivan Yadav,
384, Deo Marvel,
Anantpura, Yallahanka,
V/s
Opposite party: -
Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd,
Palam Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon-122015
Haryana
ORDER
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, praying to replace his vehicle gear box and clutch with new technology, install proper fire fighting kit in side vehicle and replace faulty starter kit or refund his vehicle amount with compensation of Rs.5,00,000=00.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The complainant had purchased a Maruthi Wagon R-XLU DEO model on 16-8-2008 with three years company warranty and from the day one while shifting back gear maximum time it generates loud unusual sound and vehicle cannot move. When the complainant went for first servicing at RNS Auto Agency at Yasavanthapura, they said it is normal in all vehicles but when he had seen his elative’s vehicles and other vehicles in showrooms, they do not have such sound. In the second service they said it was clutch problem and it is rectified but it was same again. During the third service they said company engineer came and rectified it, but it was same again. The complainant called Maruthi Suzuki engineer Dinesh, he had taken the vehicle of the complainant at Bimal Auto Agency at Yallahanka for one week and said every thing is OK in gear box of the vehicle and when he asked why same sound is not coming in Alto or any other models of Maruthi Suzuki he said Wagon R gear box design is like that so it is coming in this model only and in this case, company cannot do anything. The question of the complainant is when gear box design was not proper then why company has installed in vehicle and he had purchased new car so he is not ready to listen this kind of sound regularly and when any unusual sound is coming it means something is wrong inside and it may be now it is not creating any problem but later it affects in different ways. The complainant had mentioned in there feedback form also which he had sent it to them and till now no reply to his letter. Second thing as its LPG (Highly inflammable fuel) vehicle why company is not thought about safety measures and vehicle sold without any fire fighting kit if any incident happens then company will say its drivers fault but they will not see that how driver will control LPG fire without LPG fire without any firefighting kit. Third thing in any vehicle when engine runs then starter does not work because by mistake it can damage engine but in this vehicle starter works in running engine, so it is simple, design fault. At the time of submitting the letter to consumer forum the vehicle of the complainant was there in service centre at Bimal Auto, Yallahanka, Bangalore for claim but when the complainant discussed all issues again they said, they cannot help in this regards and he can talk to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. So the present complaint is filed, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to replace his vehicle gear box and clutch with new technology, install proper fire fighting kit in side vehicle and replace faulty starter kit or refund his vehicle amount with compensation of Rs.5,00,000=00.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection, contending interalia as under:
The complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint on false allegations without any material on record. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. The complainant has failed to set out any case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the OP. The liability of answering OP under the warranty which is part and parcel of the sale contract, the complainant brought the vehicle from M/s. Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd Bangalore on 16-8-2008 and the primary warranty of the vehicle has already concluded on 15-8-2010 by efflux of time. The complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant has failed to disclose any specific cause of action in the present complaint. The complainant has impleaded this OP with an ulterior motive to cause wrongful loss and to obtain undue gain, so the complaint file against OP is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, the complainant with malafide intentions did not implead M/s. RNS Motors, Yeshawanthpura and Bimal Auto Agency, Yelahanka. The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any consumer dispute, so this forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim for compensation. All the vehicles so manufactured by OP are duly approved by appropriate authority of Govt. of India after homologation test. The vehicle in question has also undergone all the checks and only then Final Check OK was given by answering OP before dispatching it to its authorized dealers, the authorized dealers carry out pre delivery inspection including road test, ensuring perfect OK roadworthy condition of vehicle in question, this OP has manufactured and sold several thousands of vehicles and Wagon-R is one of the best selling models of the OP. This OP gives warranty to all its new vehicles and the said primary warranty is for a period of 24 months or 40,000 kms from the date of purchase. As per clause 3 the obligation of this OP is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part of the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour, the obligation under warranty of the Ops are specific as set in the owners manual. The said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitation provided at the time of sale by Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore. The complainant is bound to strictly adhere to the guidelines and conditions enumerated in respective booklets for proper upkeep and maintenance of vehicle. It is denied that there was alleged problem of generation of loud unusual sound during shifting of reverse gear as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has concocted a false story without any material on records and the complainant took the delivery on 16-8-2008 after his due satisfaction from the showroom of Pratham motors Pvt. Ltd Bangalore in perfect condition and defect fee condition. As per records the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of M/s. RNS motors, Yeshawanthpura for obtaining 1st to 3rd free inspection services on 10-11-2008 at 811 kms, on 1-4-2009 at 1431 kms and on 14-10-2009 at 3838 kms respectively. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of warranty and was grossly negligent in proper servicing and maintenance of the vehicle in question from the date of purchase itself. As per clause 4(i) of the warranty policy, warranty is not applicable to any vehicle which is not received, during the warranty term, the service inspection prescribed in the Maruthi Suzuki’s owner’s manual. Moreover if the periodic maintenance is not obtained as per schedule the vehicle become highly susceptible to cropping the defects impacting overall performance. The vehicle in question was defect free and in perfect roadworthy condition, the vehicle in question has history of accidental/body repairs which substantiates negligent and improper maintenance/use of the vehicle by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant reported alleged problem at the time of obtaining 1st to 3rd free inspection services at the workshop, it is pertinent to submit that there was no abnormality in the vehicle and the complainant for the first time reported alleged problem in the year 2011, the cause of alleged problem was due to improper engagement of clutch pedal and shifting of gears and not due to any manufacturing defect. The improper depressing of pedal for disengagement of clutch resulting into gear problem, the OP has the fulfilled their obligation as per the terms and conditions of warranty, and there is no pith and substance in the averments as made out in the complaint. As per instructions it is recommended to get the auto LPG cylinder checked periodically and to repair the vehicle at Maruthi authorized workshop only. More so, the users/owners are instructed not to use domestic LPG, the complainant did not read throughout the manuals and much hue and cry is being raised without any basis. The expert service engineer of the workshop did not observe any abnormality in the vehicle and the performance was found as per set standards. The complainant has been making purposeful use of the vehicle and using the vehicle for his day to day activities. The complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands and relief sought in the complaint is mere exaggerations which proves ulterior motives and malafide intentions of complainant, the vehicle of the complainant is defect free and in road worthy condition, hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OP, the following points arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that, from the day one while shifting back gear it generates loud unusual sound and vehicle cannot move and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: In view of the negative findings on the
Point no.1, the complainant is not entitled
to any relief as prayed in the complaint
Point no.3: For the following order
REASONS
6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence dated 5-4-2012, and produced documents alongwith complaint from ink page no.9 to 17. On the other hand, one Thakur Kiran Singh, Manger (Law), working in the OP company has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced 12 documents with list. We have heard the arguments of both sides, and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously.
7. One Ram Sajivan Yadav, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit filed by way of evidence that, he had purchased the Maruthi Wagon-R LXI Deo model on 17-8-2008 with three years company warranty and from the date one while shifting back gear maximum time it generates loud unusual sound and vehicle cannot move. Second thing as it is LPG vehicle why company is not thought about safety measures and vehicle sold without any fire fighting kit. When the engine runs then starter does not work because of this vehicle has got some mistake it can damage the engine, but starter works in running engine. He went to Dinesh who is the service engineer of the OP, and he told that the wagon-R gear box design is like that so sound is coming from the vehicle gear box. So he prays to pass an order, directing the OP to replace the gear box with new technology, install fire fighting kit in the vehicle and replace the starter kit, or shall direct the OP to refund the car value with compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000=00 from the OP.
8. By reading the averments of the complaint and evidence of the complainant as mentioned above, it is made crystal clear that, the complainant has tendered his evidence in accordance with the averments of the complaint. Let us have a look at the relevant document of the complainant to verify whether the oral evidence of the complainant is supported by documentary evidence or not. Document produced at ink page no.9 of the complainant is the copy of Gmail letter sent by one Dinesh Kumar to Mr.Amit dated 11-2-2011 stating that gear box of the vehicle does not have any manufacturing defect and gear shifting phenomenon is normal. Document produced at ink page no.10 is the copy of gmail letter from Dinesh to Mr.Amit dated 7-1-2011 stating that the gear box of the vehicle no.KA04MF5720 does not have any manufacturing defect and also no repair work is recommended as per their service procedure as it is found normal. Document produced at ink page no.11 of the complainant is email dated 11-2-2011 sent by Amit Kumar to Dinesh Kumar stating that he will see it in consumer forum. The next documents of the complainant is copy of gmail produced at ink page no.12 issued by Amit Kumar informing to stop his finance from reliance with immediate effect and whatever charges will come from reliance side Maruthi Suzuki and Bimal Auto will bear it and he will put same issue with consumer forum. Document produced at ink page no.13 of the complainant is copy of email sent by Amit Kumar stating that he was getting abnormal sound while releasing clutch after putting reverse gear and he will stop finance and to his father car company has given fire extinguisher so why not in this car. The document produced at ink page no.15 of the complainant is copy of registration certificate of car of the complainant. Next document produced at ink page no.16 is the copy of extended warranty registration form of car of the complainant, wherein the name of the consumer is written as the complainant and this warranty period was upto date 15-8-2011. The document produced at ink page no.17 is the copy of tax/vehicle and charges invoice of the vehicle of the complainant issued by Maruthi Suzuki and as per the said documents it is clear that the car was purchased by the complainant on 16-8-2008 by paying total a sum of Rs.3,55,195.42 and that document was signed by authorized signatory of M/s. Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd, The said charge invoice was issued by authorized signatory of M/s. Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd who being the dealers of Maruthi Suzuki vehicle. But unfortunately, the complainant has not made the dealers of the vehicle as one of the necessary party. But the complainant filed the complaint against the manufacturer of the car excluding the dealer of the car for the reasons best known to him. Mover over, there is no contract between the complainant and OP for supply of Maruthi Wagon-R car and it is only between the complainant and dealers of the car. So, under the circumstance, without impleading the dealer of the vehicle, the present complaint of the complainant is not sustainable. The OP has produced five job cards at annexure-E to F. Annexure-E is the copy of Job card dated 10-11-2008 in the name of the complainant and in that, the complainant did not raise any voice in respect of loud unusual sound from the clutch while applying reverse gear and other problems as stated in the complaint. Annexure-F is the copy of Job Card dated 1-4-2008, wherein also no such complaint was made by the complainant, so also in three other job card produced by OP no reference has been made about the sound in the clutch and other problems as stated in the complaint. These five job cards produced by the OP are silent in respect of problem of the complainant, at the time of servicing of the vehicle by RNS Motors. Yeshawanthpura, Bangalore. As can be seen from the complaint that, the service provider by RNS Motors, Yeshawanthpura, Bangalore has also not been made as proper necessary party in this case. The OP has produced annexure-C being PDI job card vehicle of the complainant and alongwith documents some terms and conditions were produced and as per the limitation clause of terms and conditions, it is made to understand that, the warranty shall not apply to clutch disc. So, in view of having not warranty to the clutch as per the terms and conditions of OP, no question of replacement of clutch, in the warranty period. The said documents produced by the complainant are in sufficient to hold that from the date one of the purchase of the vehicle, while shifting gear box it generates loud unusual sound and the vehicle cannot move and there is negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP. The oral evidence of the complainant in this regard is not countenanced by clear and tangible documentary evidence. So also we do not understand, on what basis the complainant is asking replacement of gear box, clutch, installation of fire fighting kit and replacement of faulty starter kit. The material evidence in this case is totally lacking on the behalf of the complainant. The complainant who knocks the doors of the forum seeking relief has miserably failed to prove his case by placing believable documentary evidence. On the other hand, the OP has stated both in the version and evidence that the complainant has failed to prove his case by placing documentary evidence and job cards produced by the OP go to reveal that whatever problem highlighted in the complaint have not been stated in the job card and this shows the complainant has approached with malafide intention and they have supplied the car to the dealers, and in turn the dealer has sold the car to the complainant, after testing thoroughly, and the car of the complainant is not having gear box and clutch problems as such and whatever the complainant stated in the complaint and evidence is nothing but distorted the version of the truth. So viewing the version and evidence of the OP and also the job cards produced by the OP, on the back ground of non-production of convincing documentary evidence by the complainant, it is unambiguously clear that, the material evidence of the OP appears to be more plausible trust worthy and acted upon than the material evidence of the complainant. As per the documents of the complainant, it is transpired that, the complainant has purchased a car on 16-8-2008 and the present complaint came to be filed on 16-8-2011, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint against the OP dealer and service provider within two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle, but the complainant has filed the present complaint after two years and 11 months against the manufacturer of the car, who being the OP. No explanation was given by the complainant for fling the present complaint late, after expiry of more than 2 years. So under the circumstance, we hold that, the present complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation. So, making careful scrutiny of oral evidence of both parties and relevant documents of both parties, it is vivid and clear that, the complainant has utterly failed to prove this point satisfactorily by placing clear and tangible documentary evidence, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative.
9. In view of the negative findings on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. So, under the circumstance, both parties shall bear their own cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 30th day of July 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
