Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/220/2021

Himanshu Taneja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki ARENA - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Agnihotri

23 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/220/2021
Date of Institution	:	05/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	23/01/2024

 

Himanshu Taneja S/o Chiranji Lal Taneja R/o #3059 LIG Housing Society, Chandigarh.

...Complainant

Versus

 

1.   Maruti Suzuki ARENA, Industrial Area, Phase-I Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 174, (Body Shop) Industrial Area, Phase-I. Chandigarh 160102.

 

2.   Maruti Suzuki ARENA (Service Centre) Autopace Network, Plot No.112, 113, Industrial Area Phase 2, Industrial Area Phase 1, Chandigarh, 160002.

 

3.   Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1st Floor, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Plot Number-1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

 

4.   Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office, SCO-39-40, Sector-8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160008.

 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Aashish Bhagat, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.P.K.Kukreja, alongwith Sh.Anshul Kukreja, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh.Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for OP No.3 & 4.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Brezza car, from OP No.2 on 30.06.2018 (Annexure C-). The car in question was being serviced from the authorized Maruti Suzuki Service Centre regularly. In the month of November, 2019 vehicle was sent to the Service Centre of OP No.1 to get the rear doors of the above said car painted as both the rear doors of the car got scratches for which the service center painted the same. In the month of December, 2019 there were some bubbles at both the painted doors for which the complainant visited the OP No.1 to get it checked and both the rear doors got repainted again and the car was delivered to the complainant. In the month of October, 2020 for the same problem OP’s asked the complainant to leave the car with them and told that they will solve the problem. The OP this time painted all the four doors without informing the complainant and delivered the same to the complainant. When the complainant noticed the difference in the shade between body colour and that four doors which were painted by the OP No.1, the complainant visited the OP No.2 for the same they stated that they were not able to match the colour of the rear doors so to match the colour of rear doors with the body colour they had painted all the four doors. Despite several efforts made by the complainant, no satisfactory response has been received from the side of OP No.1 nor any solution is provided to the complainant till date. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging repaint of the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion/documentary evidence to prove his contentions as per Section 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the said allegation cannot be asserted without proper anaylsis and test of the vehicle from an appropriate laboratory. It is further stated that the claim for which the OP No.1 & 2 presented two different bills, the Complainant lodged separate insurance claims with the insurance company i.e., HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited. The Complainant discharged satisfaction notes about the performance of the job. The OP No.1 & 2 have not extended warranty over the quality of paint applied. There is no privity of contract between the parties based on which the Complainant has filed a present false complaint. The insurance company issued confirmation letters of accidents of the vehicle of Complainant on 23.03.2019 and 16.11.2019. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     OP No.3 & 4 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that there is no averment qua the answering OP Nos.3 & 4. In fact, the complainant has raised issue with the dealer i.e., OP No. 1 & 2. Answering OP (manufacturer) and the dealer (OP No. 1&2) work on Principal-to-Principal basis. The allegations in the complaint are with regard to the dealer i.e., OP No.1 & 2. Answering OP (manufacturer) cannot be held liable for the acts of dealer as the manufacturer and dealer work on principal-to- principal basis. No manufacturing defect has been alleged by the complainant in the complaint. Complainant has neither averred nor set up his case qua manufacturing defect. There is not even an allegation against answering OP’s. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3 & 4.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that after getting the rear doors of his car, painted from OP No.1 in Nov. 2019, it developed bubbles at both the doors. Once again, a request was made by the complainant for repainting both the rear doors and the OPs painted all the four doors without his concurrence in Oct. 2020 and the found the difference in the shade between body colour and the colour of 4 doors which were painted by the OP No.1. Due to above action of OP No.1 the value of the car has been reduced and he has suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000-Rs.2,50,000/-.
8.     On perusal of complaint, it is observed that complainant has not produced any expert opinion/documentary evidence/photographs or any other evidence to substantiate his allegations with regard to repainting & paint mismatch problems.
9.     In para 7 of the complaint, it is mentioned that all the four doors were painted by OP No.1. But he has not adduced any documentary evidence like job card/repair invoice etc. The complainant was also given opportunity by this Commission to produce the car in question on 09.01.2024, but he failed to produce the said car on the said date. The OPs have annexed Annexure R-1/5 & R-1/6 which are satisfaction vouchers duly signed by the complainant, wherein he has endorsed that the vehicle in question has been repaired to his satisfaction. The complainant have also failed to adduce any documentary evidence with regard to reduction in the value of car and have also failed to explain as to how he has suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000-Rs.2,50,000/-.
10.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
23/01/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member