Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

34/2014

Mr.Mayalagu,S/o.Sivanandi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd,Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.A.S.Mujibur Rahiman

25 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  21.02.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  25.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 25^th DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.34/2014

 

 

Mr.Mayalagu,

S/o.Sivanandi,

No.2/153, 2^nd Main Road,

West Balaji Nagar,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

Rep by its Managing Director,

Palam Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon – 122 015. (Haryana).

 

2.Popular Vehicles Ltd.,

Rep by its Managing Director,

Block J-22, Third Avenue,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 27.02.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, K.Sivakumar

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party                : M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                      : Ms.J.Ranjani Devi

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased Maruthi Swift Desire vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party on 28.10.2011 for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,30,000/- and the vehicle Registration No.TN-18Y-5432. The said vehicle was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party. While the Complainant going on 17.07.2012 to Madurai on road, near Madhuranthgam the lock in the top gear  damaged and immediately rushed to a service station  and the same was replaced. Again on 21.09.2012 while proceeding to Madurai, the same trouble occurred near Madhuranthagam and once again the problem was rectified.  For the 3^rd time on 08.10.2013 while proceeding to Madurai near Perambulur, Trichy the same problem occurred and the vehicle was left with PLA motors and rectified. In all the above occasions nearly 5 hours delay occurred due to the above problems. Therefore the 2^nd Opposite Party sold the defective vehicle to the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party manufactured the said defective vehicle and thereby they have committed unfair trade practice. The Complainant issued legal notice dated 28.10.2013 and no reply was given by the Opposite Parties. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.  

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant bought the vehicle in question on 28.10.2011 and filed the present case in the month of February 2014. Hence the present case is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Act. The Complainant is quite negligent and careless in proper maintenance of vehicle in question. The vehicle need additional maintenance & care and parts are bound to wear & tear when used extensively. The vehicle in question has history of accidental repairs and the Complainant did not bring the vehicle at the stipulated period for obtaining periodic maintenance services. The vehicle has been plied very extensively for more than 51,696 kms as on 24.01.2014 and the vehicle is in defect free and in perfect ok condition. The Complainant is making commercial use of the vehicle and failed to make any case.

3. The present Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The Complainant with malafide intention did not implead Maruthi Motors, MASS, Chennai and PLA. Motors, Perambalur, as necessary party to the case. The Complainant without any cause of action has impleaded this Opposite Party to the present case. It is submitted that the relationship of this Opposite Party with its authorized dealers is that of Principal-to-Principal basis and governed by Dealership agreement executed between the Opposite Parties. The present Complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass the answering Opposite Party. The Complainant has filed this case to exert legal pressure on the Opposite Parties to obtain undue gains. Lastly, the Complainant is stopped from filing the present Complaint by his own acts, conduct & acquiescence. The Complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The vehicle supplied by the 2^nd Opposite Party and manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant has not perused the user manual for best handling and he failed to follow the same. The Complainant would not have adhered the procedure mentioned in the user manual given by the Opposite Parties. Without following the procedure, the Complainant has used the vehicle. The Complaint is strictly barred by limitation since the vehicle was purchased on 28.10.2011 and the Complaint was filed in the month of Feb, 2014. The Complainant used the vehicle for more than 2 years and now filed the Complaint alleging defective vehicle has been sold to him and hence the Complaint is liable to be dismissed for this reason alone. The Complainant gave the vehicle for service on 17.07.2012 and 21.09.2012 at Maduranthagam and on 08.10.2013 at Perambalur PLA Motors and failed to implead these parties to the proceedings and for the non-joinder of necessary parties the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Opposite Party strictly denies the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Opposite Parties has provided best service to the Complainant during free service and other service but he came forward with false Complaint before this Hon’ble Forum by suppressing the truth. On receipt of the legal notice, the Opposite Parties sent its service engineer to know the details of the defective and also assured that they will rectify the defect if any found but the Complainant has not allowed them to rectify and told them that he will file a consumer case against the Opposite Parties. There is no negligent act or unfair trade practice done by the Opposite Parties and he is put to strict proof of the same and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased Maruthi Swift Desire vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-18Y-5432 from the 2^nd Opposite Party/dealer for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,30,000/- on 28.10.2011 under Ex.A1 invoice and the said vehicle was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party.

          8. According to the Complainant while he was proceedings to Madurai on road on 17.07.2012 near Maduranthagam the lock in the car gear damaged then he left the vehicle in a service station at Maduranthagam and the same was replaced and Ex.A4 job card issued to him and again on 21.09.2012 while proceedings to Maduranthagam the same trouble was occurred in Maduranthagam and that was also rectified under Ex.A5 job card and on 3^rd occasion 08.10.2013 while proceedings to Madurai near Perambulur the same defect occurred and he left the vehicle at PLA motor service station and they rectified defect in the lock in the 3^rd gear and in all occasions each time 5 hours delayed due to the aforesaid defects and therefore the first Opposite Party  manufactured the defective vehicle and with such defect  the vehicle was sold by the 2^nd Opposite Party and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed unfair trade practice and prays to order compensation to him.

          9. Admittedly Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.A7 job card proves that the service station have rectified the gear problems. Apart from the gear problem there is no other problem in the vehicle alleged by the Complainant. After rectifying the gear problem on 08.10.2013 there is no evidence on the part of the Complainant that the same problem occurred again. Therefore after 08.10.2013 it is taken that there was no gear problem or any other problem in the vehicle.

          10.  The Complainant alleges that the defective vehicle was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party and sold by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Manufacturing defect means the vehicle should have manufacturing defect. Manufacturing defect has not been pleaded in the Complaint. The mere gear problem that too it was rectified then and there through job card filed by the Complainant himself and there is no evidence to establish that the gear problem is amounting to manufacturing defect. Hence the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have sold defective vehicle to the Complainant is not accepted. In view of such conclusion it is  held that the Opposite Parties have not practiced any unfair trade practice and further held that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service.

11. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 25^th day of May 2017.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.10.2011                   Invoice for the purchase of Car

Ex.A2 dated 01.11.2011                   Certificate of extended warranty Registration

Ex.A3 dated 01.11.2011                   R.C.Book of the car No. TN-18-Y-5432

Ex.A4 dated 17.07.2012                   Job card for repair done at Maduranthakam

Ex.A5 dated 21.09.2012                   Job card for repair done at Maduranthakam

Ex.A6 dated 21.09.2013                   Insurance Policy for the period from 29.10.2013 to

                                                    28.10.2014

 

Ex.A7 dated 08.10.2013                   Job card for repair done at Perambalur

 

Ex.A8 dated 28.10.2013                   Legal Notice

 

Ex.A9 dated 11.11.2013                   Acknowledgement Card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Copy of the relevant clause of standard dealership

                                                    agreement

 

Ex.B2 dated  NIL                    Copy of PDI Job Card and delivery checklist

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Copy of warranty Policy

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT