Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/87/2019

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Somesh Gupta Adv.

17 Jun 2021

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	87 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	15.02.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	17.06.2021

 

 

 

 

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh.Sant Singh, Aged about 64 years, R/o H.No.3094, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Registered Office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 1100070 through its authorized signatory.

2]  Regional Manager, Regional office (North-II), Maruti Suzuki India Limited, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3]  M/s Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager/Authorised Signatory, Elante Mall, Ground Floor (Office Block), Plot No.178/178a, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                     MEMBER 

                   SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                                               

 

Argued by :-  Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant.

                 Sh.Sahil Sablok, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

                 None for OP No.3.

 

 

PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a new Maruti Baleno Diesel Car on 26.4.2017 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.7,77,214/- and got it registered vide Regd. No.CH01-BM-7893.  It is averred that before the second due service of the car, when it covered only 4667 kms, it gave problem and when it was taken to OP No.3, the mechanic replaced a faulty seal “Seal, Diff Side Oil RH” (Ann.C-2).  The complainant again noticed oil leakage beneath the engine of the car, so it was again taken to OP No.3 when it covered only 9554 Kms while attending 3^rd service and again replacement of “Seal, Diff Side Oil RH” was done (An.C-3). It is also stated that the same problem of engine oil leakage again occurred and the complainant again took the vehicle to OP No.3 and attended 4^th service and reported the matter whereupon the OP again replaced the seal “Seal, Diff Side Oil RH”.  It is submitted that OP No.1 had charged the complainant when he reported the said defect of oil leakage i.e. Rs.1025/- at second service, Rs.5073/- at third service and Rs.8781/- during fourth service (Ann.C-2 to C-4). 

         It is pleaded that the complainant followed warranty terms & conditions whereas all his request for replacement of defective parts causing damage to the seal leading to leakage of oil from the car repeatedly during warranty  period were ignored to deprive him of its benefit, though the complainant had been charged Rs.20,190/- (Ann.C-5) by OP No.3 on account of extended warranty which was otherwise avoidable as the original warranty lasts upto 40000 KMs or 24 months from the date of purchase.  It is also pleaded that the frequent occurring of oil leakage fault in the brand new car of the complainant that too within warranty period and despite reporting the matter to OP No.3 who failed to set it right permanently, was the reason that the complainant could not go for long road  trip being afraid that due to leakage of oil from the car, any major mishap could occur while travelling in the defective car. The complainant being fed up with the deficient service of the OP No.3 and irresponsible attitude, sent legal notice on 8.1.2019, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the problem of engine oil leakage has always been attended as per warranty and the necessary parts have been replaced on free of cost basis under warranty. It is stated that the relationship between the answering OPs and dealer is that of Principal to Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement.  It is stated that on second free service on 7.9.2019 at 4667 kms., the engine oil leakage was reported and demanded repair; the vehicle was inspected and necessary parts were replaced free of cost under warranty. It is also stated that on 3^rd free service on 9.1.2018 the car was sent to work shop at 9554 kms. i.e. after the vehicle had been plied for another 4887 kms. after the second service and engine oil leakage was reported as demanded repair; the vehicle was inspected and necessary parts were replaced free of cost under warranty.  It is also submitted that the vehicle was sent to work shop of OP No.3 for periodic maintenance service on 10.10.2018 at 17907 kms. i.e. after the vehicle had been plied for another 8353 kms after 3^rd service and engine oil leakage was reported which demanded repairs, as such, the vehicle was inspected and necessary parts were replaced free of cost under warranty. It is pleaded that after that visit, the vehicle has never been sent to any authorized workshop of the answering OPs for alleged problem of engine oil leakage, which indicates that the vehicle was being purposefully plied by the complainant and there was no problem in it after the necessary repairs were carried out under warranty. It is also pleaded that as the vehicle was plied for another 4887 kms the allegations of the part being defective is uncalled for.  It is further pleaded that had there been a defect, the vehicle would not have plied such a distance. It is submitted that necessary replacements were carried out on free of cost basis under warranty and the amount charged from the complainant was for the consumables and labour charges.  It is also submitted that the complainant himself has assessed manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which he is neither qualified nor have any expertise to comment. It is further submitted that there was no act of omission or commission on the part of answering OPs causing any loss or harassment to the complainant. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        

         The OP No.3 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have taken almost identical pleas as has been taken by OPs NO.1 & 2 in their written statement, hence needs not to be repeated herein.  However, it is stated that rubber seal of gear oil was changed on free of costs during warranty and there was no leakage beneath the engine of the car.  It is also stated that the said seal is not meant for engine oil, the ‘Seal Diff Side Oil RH’ was not affecting performance of the vehicle nor the said rubber part was to curb the purported engine oil leakage nor anything was charged for it.  The cost as alleged by the complainant was charged for consumable items.  It is submitted that the car is not suffering from the damages, oil leakage, defect etc. and the complainant is regularly utilizing the car and has concocted a false story with ulterior motive about alleged defect in the car. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP No.3 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       The complainant paid huge amount of Rs.7,77,214/- to buy happiness and comfort for himself and his family and spent his hard earned money on the purchase of brand new car in question. The new car is expected to perform/function as per company’s declared & advertised standards. The mental, emotional and physical harassment of the complainant due to defect in the car is well founded.  The plea that he was afraid to take car on long drive for fear of leakage of oil is well established by the facts on file. This fact has also been admitted by the OPs in their replies, who rendered repairs partly free and partly at a cost.  The fear of the complainant that there might be risk of life due to danger of car catching fire or breakdown is also understandable.  Therefore, the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of OPs is proved.    

         The complainant had suffered harassment due to deficient act of OPs. We are of the opinion that the burden and harassment so caused to the complainant was due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP.

 

7]       From the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as discussion, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite parties with following direction:-

a)  To replace defective parts/s causing oil leakage from the car after thorough inspection of the car, free of cost;

b)  To refund an amount Rs.20,190/- to the complainant, so paid for extended warranty;

c)  To pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment suffered by him due to deficient services rendered by them, as well as litigation expenses.

          This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.20000/- apart from the above relief.

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

Announced                                                             

17^th June, 2021                                                 Sd/-

                                      (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER