DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No: 114 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 07.03.2011 Date of Decision : 30.07.2012 -------------------------------- Rajeev Kumar S/o Dalip Singh, R/o #1081, Vill. Naya Gaon, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab. ---Complainant VERSUS [1] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon, 122015 (Haryana), through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory. [2] Berkeley Automobiles Limited, Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Munish Goel, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Parmod Kumar Jain, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1. Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that, the Complainant having purchased a Maruti Wagon-R LXi car on 16/4/2010 for total invoice price of Rs.3,25,191/- (Annexure C-1) from Opposite Party No.2. The said vehicle having an initial warranty of 01 year was subscribed for an extended warranty of two years on the advice of Opposite Parties. The extended warranty is now valid upto 15/4/2013, as per Annexure C-2. The Complainant in order to purchase the vehicle in question had availed a loan of Rs.1,90,000/- from H.D.F.C. Bank, and had got it insured for the period beginning 16/4/2010 upto 15/4/2011 (Annexure C-4). The Registration Certificate of the vehicle is at Annexure C-5. The Complainant claims that the vehicle in question had been giving trouble from the day one and there was a problem in starting the vehicle. The Complainant found some part of the vehicle lying on the floor and took it along while visiting for the 1st free service on 6/5/2008 to Opposite Party No.2. After observing this part, Supervisor of the Opposite Party refused to acknowledge the same and denied that this part belonged to the vehicle of the Complainant. Thereafter, on 2nd occasion, on 8/5/2010, while the Complainant was getting petrol filled in his car at Sector 15 Petrol Pump, again experienced problem with the starting of the Engine. The vehicle was towed to Opposite Party No.2 after a call was made to the Customer Care. Opposite Party No.2 make some repairs and also replaced some parts. The Complainant has annexed the old part claimed to belong to the vehicle as Annexure C-7 and the job card dated 8/5/2010 as Annexure C-8. As the vehicle was again and again suffered a problem, with its starting, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to look into the matter during the 2nd and the 3rd free services. The Complainant claims that he has not been able to operate his vehicle to the fullest because of the repeated problems. The Opposite Parties having attended to the vehicle, on different occasions, thereafter, is shown from the job cards Annexures C-9, C-10, C-11, C-12, C-13 and C-14. Aggrieved of the repeated problems, Complainant also wrote a letter dated 13/10/2010 to the office of Opposite Party No.1 at Delhi and Gurgaon. The same is annexed at Annexure C-15 and C-16 respectively. The Complainant also wrote letters to Consumer Affairs at New Delhi on 30/10/2010, and the same are annexed at Annexure C-17, C-18 and C-19. The Complainant claims that on the last occasion, the vehicle was again repaired on 26/2/2011 and the same is reflected on the job card annexed at Annexure C-20. The Complainant aggrieved of the repeated visits to the Workshop of the Opposite Parties, claims that the Vehicle in question has an inherent manufacturing defect, which has required a number of repairs, thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, for selling a defective vehicle and having caused unnecessary mental, physical and financial hardship, has prayed for the following relief: - [a] To replace the car with a new Maruti Wagon-R LXi or refund Rs.3,25,191/- plus along with 12% interest from the date of payment, till its realization. [b] To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and mental agony to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.33,000/- as cost of litigation; [d] Any other relief that this Hon’ble Forum may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed against the Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice; The complaint of the complainant is duly supported by his detailed affidavit. 2. The Opposite Party No.1 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious & is based on false allegations, without any material on record against the answering Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.1 claims to be answerable as per the warranty terms & conditions and as the vehicle, in question, having covered 18023 Kms as on 27/2/2011, within a span of 10 months, is claimed to be working in a perfectly fine condition. Thus, the Opposite Party No.1 prays for the dismissal of the present complaint. On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The reply of the Opposite Party No.1 is supported by a detailed affidavit of Sh. Vikas Saini, Territory Service Manager. 3. The Opposite Party No.2 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious & has been filed against the answering Opposite Party, with ulterior motive of taking some undue benefit by harassing and pressurizing it. The Opposite Party No.2 has also claimed that the vehicle of the Complainant is perfectly alright and there is no defect as such that could establish inherent manufacturing defect. Opposite Party No.2 has also taken strong objections of the Complainant creating false evidence in order to make a case that the vehicle is defective. The answering Opposite Party claims to have attended each and every complaint as and when the vehicle visited its Workshop. Even more, that the benefit of extended warranty offered to the Complainant too was honoured by not charging any money for the repairs which were required at different point of time. Opposite Party has also stated that whatever defect that had ever occurred to the vehicle was because of the bad driving habits, mishandling and getting the vehicle repaired from an outside mechanic. All the different free services were attended by the answering Opposite Party and the necessary repairs required at different point of time too were diligently attended to. The answering Opposite Party prays for the dismissal of the complaint, as the Complainant has failed to make out a certain case of deficiency in service qua it. On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The reply of the Opposite Party No.2 is supported by a detailed affidavit of Sh. Om Parkash Sharma, Liaison/ Legal Officer. 4. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 5. The Complainant in his present complaint has alleged some inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle purchased by him. The Complainant in order to press his allegations has mentioned about the different visits to the Workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for necessary repairs. The Complainant has also cited that the vehicle in question had repeatedly failed to start, and thus, had to be towed to the Workshop, so that the same can be repaired. 6. The Complainant before visiting the Opposite Party No.2 for its 1st free service on 6/5/2010 claims to have carrying a mechanical part of his vehicle, which he had found lying on the floor, while the vehicle was being washed. The Complainant had shown this part to the Opposite Party, but this issue was ignored as the Workshop Incharge opined that the mechanical part in question did not belong to the Complainant’s vehicle, though the Complainant has annexed this part as Annexure C-7 with the present complaint, but had failed to establish whether this part actually belong to the vehicle in question. The Complainant has also not highlighted that during the repair of the vehicle in question at the premises of Opposite Party No.2, this mechanical part in question was either replaced or substituted. 7. The Complainant’s objection with regard to the vehicle not starting at different times were addressed by the Opposite Parties, whereas the allegation of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had also got his vehicle attended to by an outside mechanic. The Opposite Parties claims that their was a problem with the starting motor of the vehicle in question, which was repaired at the first instance, and in case, the problem did re-occur, a replacement of the starting motor was also advised. The Opposite Party has also pointed out about the repeated request for the adjustment in the clutch, and problem of hard gear shift raised by the Complainant, which too was attended, and the Complainant was advised to operate the same in a proper manner, so that the problem did not occur again. 8. It is also found that the Opposite Parties, while attending the vehicle, in question, for the necessary repairs, as mentioned by the Complainant, was also offered the services of a loaner car, and the same is reelected from Annexure C-13 dated 08/10/2010. 9. The Complainant as such has not repeated his allegations with regard to the repairs that has already been done, had ever occurred again, by bringing on record any evidence that these problems were still persisting. The Complainant thus has failed to conclusively establish the allegations against the Opposite Parties, thus we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the light of these observations, we feel that the Complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th July, 2012 Sd/-(LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
