DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Gurdeep Singh son of Shri Gian Singh, resident of House No.173-A, PEC Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Maruti Suzuki India Limited through its Regional Manager, Regional Office No.2, S.C.O. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160018

2.                 M/s Berkeley Automobiles Limited, through its Managing Director, 27 Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

Second Address :

M/s Berkeley Automobiles Limited, through its Managing Director, 26/9, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Rajbir Singh Guron, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Parmod Jain, Counsel for OP No.1

                        OP No.2 exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Gurdeep Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs against the opposite parties :-

i)                   Either to replace the car with a new car or to pay its price i.e. 3,19,000/- alongwith interest

ii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.3,19,000/- as compensation for mental trauma.

iii)              To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 29.10.2010 he bought a Maruti Suzuki Alto K 10 LXI model car (Regn. No.CH01 AD 4633) from opposite party No.2.

According to the complainant, he faced problems with regard to extra whistling noise from the engine at the speed of approx. 40-50 KMPH in 4^th-5^th gear. He lodged complaints with the dealer on 3.11.2010, 5.3.2010 (?) and 15.11.2010.  It has been stated that the car was road tested on 15.11.2010 after which the officials of opposite party No.2 orally told that the noise was common in all cars of the model. Dis-satisfied with the explanation, the complainant lodged complaints with the opposite parties vide emails (A-1 to A-12).  Thereafter, one Sh. Manish Kumar, Home Visit Supervisor (alongwith a technician Mr. Balram) of opposite party No.2 came to check the car on 28.9.2011 and observed that there was noise in the car but told that they were unable to rectify the fault.  Subsequently, the complainant took the car to the workshop of opposite party No.2 on 1.10.2011 where Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Assistant Works Manager alongwith Sh. Sukhjinder Singh, Works Manager tested the car and orally admitted that there was noise.  On 3.10.2011, Sh. Prince Dua, Territory Service Manager of the opposite party tested the car of the complainant and though he too admitted the noise but told that there was no abnormality. According to the complainant there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and failure to remove the same on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 

3.                           In its written statement opposite party No.1 admitted the sale of the car in question to the complainant.  However, it has been denied that there was any problem of extra whistling noise from the engine at the speed approx. 40-50 kmpl in 4^th – 5^th gear.  It has been stated that the complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party No.2 on 15.11.2011 (?) at 332 kms for obtaining running repairs.; thereafter the vehicle was brought on 29.11.2010  at 588 kms for 1^st free inspection and on 10.5.2011 at 4130 kms. for 2^nd free inspection service.  However no abnormality was observed in the performance of the vehicle and minor adjustments were carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It has further been stated that to redress the grievance of the complainant and to remove unwarranted persuasions, the vehicle was attended at the complainant’s residence by Mr. Prince Dua, Territory Service Manager alongwith Works Manager of opposite party No.2.  The vehicle was thoroughly road tested and no abnormality was found in it.  It has been pleaded that as per terms and conditions of warranty, the opposite party was responsible for replacement of defective components only.   It has been stated that the vehicle was brought for 3^rd free inspection service on 30.10.2011 at 6925 kms. when it was again thoroughly inspected and no abnormality was observed.  It has been vehemently denied that there is any defect in the vehicle or that the complainant is entitled for replacement of car or refund of its price.  Pleading that neither there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor there is any deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.                           Opposite party No.2 in its separate written reply also admitted the sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant.  However, it has been denied that the complainant faced any problem of whistling noise emanating from the vehicle. It has been stated that the complaints lodged by the complainant were duly attended.  It has been denied that any official of the opposite party observed/admitted that there was any abnormal noise. It has been pleaded that on 1.10.2011 when the complainant approached its workshop, he was given opportunity to drive the vehicle (same model) of two other customers to show that his vehicle had no abnormal noise.  It has further been pleaded that had there been any defect in any part of the vehicle, the opposite party would have certainly got the same replaced. It has been pleaded that neither there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor there is any deficiency in service on its part, hence prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           The contention of the ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the vehicle in question, suffered from some manufacturing defect due to which it emanated noise at the speed of approx. 40-50 KMPH in 4^th-5^th gear.  Despite the fact that it was taken for repairs many a times, the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defect.   Therefore, the vehicle needs to be replaced with a new one.  On the other hand, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that there is no defect in the vehicle.  The complainant also got his vehicle inspected from one Gurshewak Singh who, in para 3 & 4 of his affidavit, filed in this Forum, has mentioned as under :-

“3.       That the deponent has checked Alto K10 car bearing registration No.CH01AD 4633. The deponent found that the said car is generating noise from its gear box.  The said car starts generating noise at the speed of 40-50 KMPH in 4^th 5^th gears from the gear box (Crown noise). The said noise is due to the engine of the Alto K10 car having high RPM being new technology engine.  Due to high RPM of the engine, the Lay Shaft and the Gear Shaft of the car do not match properly, causing noise.

4.         That the said defect is manufacturing defect in the car.”

7.                           In order to settle the controversy, the matter was referred to the Director, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh vide order dated 24.5.2012 to find out whether there is manufacturing defect in the car or not.  In response thereto, vide memo No.PEC/MED/20076 dated 7.9.2012 report was received from the said Institute and the relevant portion of the same reads as under :-

          “The vehicle in question was inspected and test driven for 10 kms.

            The committee after inspection, test drive and perusal of records is of the opinion that there is a typical sound in the gear box at the sped above 40 km./hr, but this problem may not be attributed to a manufacturing defect in the engine and this can be rectified by replacement of the gear box.”

8.                           We are of the view that the report of the expert committee clinches the entire controversy. There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle is well within the warranty period.  In such circumstances the opposite parties should have acted swiftly and replaced the defective part to put an end to the grievance of the complainant, but they failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Otherwise also the law in these types of cases is well settled. When the vehicle can be set right by replacement of the defective part then there is no need for change of the vehicle as a whole.

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)                To replace the gear box with a new one without charging anything from the complainant.

(ii)             To pay Rs.22,472/- to the complainant as assessed by the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh being fee for inspection/checking of the vehicle.

(iii)           To pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him

(iv)           To pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides complying with other directions. 

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.11.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER