Date of filing: 07.12.2013.
Date of disposal: 22.04.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Sri S. Sreeram, B.A., B.Com., B.L., Member
Tuesday, the 22nd day of April, 2014
C.C.No.183 of 2013
Between:
Vannemreddi Narasimha Rao, S/o VPVK Satyanarayana, Aged about 50 years, Engineer, Plot No.8, 2nd Floor, Padmaja Nagar, Opp: VR Sidhartha Engineering College, Tadigadapa, Vijayawada.
….. Complainant
And
1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Rep: by its Authorized Person, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.
2. Varun Motors Private Limited, Rep: by its Authorized Person, D.No.48-17-4/1, Ring Road, Vijayawada – 520 008.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 11.4.2014, in the presence of Sri S. Subhas Chandra Bose, advocate for complainant; opposite party no.1 remained absent; Sri I. Venkateswara Rao, advocate for opposite party no.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao,)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the defective car sold to the complainant with new car, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, to pay Rs.75,000/- towards travelling expenses, to pay Rs.1,500/- per day from the date of filing the complaint till delivery, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards towing charges and to pay costs of Rs.20,000/-.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant purchased a Swift Dezire car from the 2nd opposite party dealer of the 1st opposite party company on 29.1.2013 for a price of Rs.7,90,768/- and took delivery. All the three free services were done by July, 2013. One day while the complainant was driving the car he noticed that the MI lamp was glowing. He got it notified at Maruthi showroom in Rajahmundry. Three days later again the MI lamp started glowing. The car was taken to the 2nd opposite party. They serviced the vehicle and returned it and said that indent was placed for spare part. They did not reveal the problem with the vehicle. But the problem persisted. The car was stopping. The complainant was to get it towed away. On 13.10.2013, while the complainant was going on National highway, the engine suddenly stopped and speed suddenly showed down. Another vehicle approaching from behind hit the car. The complainant and members of his family were in the car but they escaped from major accident. The back portion of the car was totally damaged. The car was towed to Maruthi showroom in Rajahmundry. On their advice, the car was towed to the showroom of 2nd opposite party on 17.10.2013. The 2nd opposite party said that indent was placed for faulty part ‘common rail’ which cost about Rs.14,000/-. On 1.11.2013 when the complainant made enquiries as to the repairs, the staff of 2nd opposite party told him that indent was placed for faulty ‘injectors’ costing about Rs.60,000/-. The car has manufacturer’s warranty for two years and has extended warranty. The complainant sent an e-mail to the 1st opposite party on 4.11.2013 asking them to enquire into the condition of engine of the complainant’s car. He also asked them to replace the car with new one. There was no response. As the car is held up in the showroom of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant is incurring an expenditure of Rs.1,500/- every day for travelling. As the car is faulty and as there is deficiency of service, this complaint is filed after issue of legal notice.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed version admitting sale of car and services done, and denying the allegations of defects and deficiency and further stating as follows:
The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 16.10.2013 and a job slip was prepared for body repairs. Job card was opened on 25.10.2013. The complainant brought the car with damage to be back portion of the car. He did not disclose that the car had sudden break down on the road, it was involved in accident and he claimed insurance amount. The injectors of the car were sent to Sai Aruna Diesel Engineering Company, Vijayawada, the authorized service personnel of Bosch injectors. They found defect in the injectors and they informed that the nozzles in the injectors were damaged due to use of adulterated fuel in the car. The nozzles and valves of the injectors required replacement. The 2nd opposite party gave report on 24.10.2013 and the estimated cost of Rs.20,000/- was informed to the complainant. The complainant demanded replacement of all the injectors. The 2nd opposite party estimated the valve of injectors as Rs.60,000/-. The injectors damaged due to use of adulterated fuel are not covered by the warranty. As a good will gesture the 2nd opposite party got the parts worth Rs.19,665/- and common rail worth Rs.10,531/- replaced free of cost and labour charges were not collected. There is no defect in the parts of the car. There is no fault on the part of the opposite parties.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit as deposition of PW.1. The General Manager – Service of 2nd opposite party filed affidavit as deposition of DW.1. Exs.A1 to A11 are marked for the complainant. Exs.B1 to B15 are marked on behalf of the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party though appeared through advocate has not filed version and has not produced evidence.
5. Pending enquiry in this complaint, the complainant took delivery of the vehicle and both parties filed a joint memo on 19.2.2014. In that memo the complainant states that some problem arose in the vehicle and the vehicle was returned to the 2nd opposite party on 10.1.2014 and the 2nd opposite party has informed that the defects are rectified and the complainant may take the vehicle and so the complainant was receiving the vehicle on 19.2.2014. So the vehicle is returned to the complainant after rectifying defects and without collecting any amount from him.
6. In view of the above events the point that arises for determination is: Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and expenses as claimed on the ground of deficiency on the part of the 2nd opposite party?
7. The 2nd opposite party states that damage was caused to the injectors due to use of adulterated fuel. The 2nd opposite party relies on the report of Sri Aruna Deizel Engineering Company, the authorized service provider for Bosch injectors. Ex.B5 is said to be the report. Ex.B6 and B7 are common rail injector test details. They contain some technical information. There is no specific opinion given by the Bosch service provider that the fuel used by the complainant was adulterated. We cannot readily say from Ex.B5 to B7 that the damage to the injectors was caused due to use of adulterated fuel.
8. The complainant has not produced the details of the accident occurred on 13.10.2013 and has not filed copy of the claim placed with insurance company in connection with the accident. Exact place of accident is not known. The accident was not reported till 16.10.2013.
9. It cannot be said that no accident took place because the 2nd opposite party admitted that there was accident repairs covered by insurance claim. Service history filed by the 2nd opposite party marked as Ex.B14 would show that the repairs done under job card dated 25.10.2013 were body repairs and replacement of rear bumper was the demand repairs and there is reference to Bajaj insurance. On 17.10.2013 the vehicle was taken to S.B. Motors Corporation, Lalacheruvu (Rajahmundry). As per the vehicle history and the service type is noted as running repairs. According to the complainant the vehicle towed to work shop in Rajahmundry from the place of accident and they advised to take the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party. It appears to be correct as the labour description was noted as general check up from the visit on 17.10.2013 to S.B. Motors, Lalacheruvu. The nature of accident is not known however it was appears to have been caused to the rear side of the vehicle and not to the front side of the vehicle. So the defect in injectors is certainly not due to accident and it is also not the case of the 2nd opposite party. As observed above there is no material placed by the 2nd opposite party to show that the adulterated fuel was used by the complainant and it resulted in damage to the some parts of injectors. This aspect looses its significance since the damaged injector was replaced without any charges.
10. The accident repairs appears to have been completed by 25.10.2013 as per the vehicle history for 7th visit. The job card was prepared on 25.10.2013 though the vehicle was bought on 18.10.2013 as per the contention of the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter the complainant did not take it and he asked for replacement of injectors. Injectors were not replaced by 25.10.2013 and the complainant did not take the vehicle. There is reason for the complainant not to take the vehicle and it is for the 2nd opposite party to get the injector rectified or replaced within reasonable time and without demanding charges for injectors. The 2nd opposite party did not give the vehicle till this complaint was filed. Therefore there is certainly unreasonable delay in getting defects rectified and in replacing defective parts. When the vehicle was brought to service center for body repairs in view of accident some time will be taken for getting repairs done. Even for replacement of injector some reasonable time has to be allowed and if there is further delay it may be compensated. In the present case we feel that granting reasonable amount of compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the vehicle had already met with an accident and it is not established that the accident took place due to defective injector the compensation is assessed at Rs.30,000/-. The complainant shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.2,000/-. We are not inclined to award compensation and expenses as claimed by the complainant.
11. In the result this complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the complainant. The amounts awarded shall be paid within one month from the date of this order. The complaint for rest of the reliefs is dismissed.
Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 22nd day of April, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
Vannemreddi Narasimha Rao – PW.1 The General Manager – Service (by affidavit) of 2nd OP: DW – 1, (by affidavit).
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 29.01.2013 Photocopy of receipt issued by OP for purchase of car.
Ex.A2 29.01.2013 Photocopy of sale certificate.
Ex.A3 Photocopy of registration certificate.
Ex.A4 16.10.2013 Photocopy of body repair job slip.
Ex.A5 18.10.2013 Photocopy of job slip.
Ex.A6 Original copy of delivery check list.
Ex.A7 04.11.2013 Copy letter issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A8 13.11.2013 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to Ops.
Ex.A9 Postal receipt.
Ex.A10 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A11 20.01.2014 Copy of letter issued by complaint to Op.
On behalf of the 2nd opposite party:
Ex.B1 12.10.2013 Photocopy of job card retail invoice.
Ex.B2 25.10.2013 Photocopy of job card retail invoice.
Ex.B3 06.01.2014 Photocopy of job card retail invoice.
Ex.B4 06.01.2014 Photocopy of job card retail invoice.
Ex.B5 24.10.2013 Photocopy of demand repairs and job instructions (job slip)
Ex.B6 12.04.2013 Photocopy of common rail injector test copy.
Ex.B7 27.12.2013 Photocopy of common rail injector test copy.
Ex.B8 28.12.2013 Photocopy of delivery challan.
Ex.B9 06.01.2014 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.B10 16.01.2014 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B11 27.01.2014 Photocopy of common rail injector test copy.
Ex.B12 03.02.2014 Photocopy of letter issued by OP.2 to complainant.
Ex.B13 02.03.2014 Photocopy of mail copy issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B14 Photocopy of vehicle history.
Ex.B15 31.03.2014 Photocopy of job card retail invoice.
PRESIDENT
