Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/236/2015

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Harmandeep Singh Saini

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/236/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	16/02/2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baljeet Singh son of Ajaib Singh resident of H. No.66, New Garden Colony, Sector 12, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office SCO 39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

 

[2]  Stan Autos Pvt. Ltd. C-39, Phase 3, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Chairman/Managing Director.

 

[3]  JK Tyres & Industries Ltd., SCF 511, Motor Market Manimajra through its Branch Manager.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Ankur Bali, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Swift VDI (Diesel) car from Chittosho Motors, C-39, phase 3 industrial area SAS Nagar, Mohali which has now been now taken over by Opposite Party No.2, on 21.8.2013 having warranty up to two years with extended warranty of two years after paying an extra amount of Rs.8,320.26/- in addition to the price of the car i.e. 6,04,771/-. The tyres of the said car after running 20000 km started having uneven/spotty wear and tear.  The car was taken to Opposite Party No.2, who after examination told that the car is alright and there is no problem in the shock absorbers of the car but the factory fitted tyres are faulty and directed the complainant towards Opposite Party No.3 i.e. J.K. Tyres for rectifying the problem but it refused to do so as according to it the fault was in the car and not in the tyres supplied by them. Thereafter the complainant again approached OP No.2 but to no avail. It has been alleged that despite numerous requests the Opposite Parties refused to entertain and redress the grievance of the complainant, which caused him a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 5.6.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that the liability of answering Opposite Party being the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause 3 of the warranty policy as set out in the owner’s manual and service booklet. It has been averred that the vehicle given to the complainant was brand new and defect free. The complainant had satisfied himself with the working of vehicle before taking the delivery of the vehicle. It is further averred that the report of J&K tyres falsifies the version of the complainant.  The report nowhere says that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle as stated by the complainant. Even otherwise the tyres and tubes are not covered under warranty as per clause 4(b) of the warranty policy enumerated in the service booklet and the complainant is bound by the same terms and conditions of the warranty policy. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply stated that the complainant got the tyres inspected on 27.10.2014 and at that time the vehicle had run above 20,000 Kms. As per the  inspection report the percentage wear of the tyres as detected was 40% wear on rear left 35% of rear right, 45% of front right and 40% of front left. All tyres had been rejected as same were found having uneven/spotty wear. The said wear and tear cannot be attributed upon the answering Opposite Party as the same occur due to mechanical defects in suspension, axle of the car shock absorbers etc or simply because of negligence of the complainant in keeping and maintaining the vehicle. As per warranty policy manual, tyres with severe uneven wear/ misalignment (MAL) wear are not entitled for warranty.  Pleading no deficiency on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

      

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.     We have gone through the warranty as per Warranty Policy available at R-1/A. The said Warranty Policy in clause 4(b) specifically states that it shall not apply to replacement of normal wear parts, including tryes and tubes. The allegation of the Complainant that the tryes had manufacturing defect does not cover under Warranty Policy. Moreover, the car had run and plied for more than 20000 Kms. when the alleged tyre defect was reported. The allegation of the Complainant that the tyres were not replaced though he had availed extended warranty on the vehicle does not hold good as the tyres are specifically excluded from warranty. We have also scanned the report of Opposite Party No.3 dated 27.10.2014 placed at Annexure C-6. As per the said report, the percentage wear of the tyres as detected was 40% wear on rear left, 35% wear on rear right, 45% wear on front right and 40% wear on front left, after driving the vehicle for more than 20000 Kms. Importantly, the said wear and tear can occur due to mechanical defects or simply because of negligence of the Complainant in keeping and maintaining the vehicle, driving habits, road conditions, off road driving, improper air pressure, skidding (frequent applying of brakes at high speed), untimely wheel alignment and wheel rotation etc. The tyre products are warranted against any deficiency in design, manufacturing, material or workmanship. However, no such conclusion has been drawn on inspection of the tyres by Opposite Party No.3.

 

8.     For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

9.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

16^th February, 2016                                            

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER