- Arun Poddar,
57/6, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-19. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
L & T Chamber, 4th Floor,
16, Camac Street, Kolkata-17,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Gurgaon Plant, Old Polam
Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015.
- M/s Auto Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd.
34A, C.N. Roy Road,
P.S. Tiljala, Kolkata-39. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 47 Dated 03/02/2016.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant for his personal use approached the o.p. no.3 at their show room at Southern Avenue, Kolkata-29 for purchasing one car.
O.p. no.3 vide Tax invoice dt.20.6.08 sold one Swift LXI car, colour-Silky Silver, bearing engine no.G13BBN421047, chassis no.MASEKE41S00319435 for an amount of Rs.4,05,829/- to the complainant.
For the purpose of smooth running of the car o.ps. provided 24 months warranty or 40,000 kms (whichever is earlier) from the date of delivery to the first owner. As per instruction of o.p. no.3 the complainant also obtained two years extended warranty from o.ps. on payment of Rs.4995/- on 1.7.08 which is valid upto 3.7.12 and valid upto mileage of 80,000 kms. being contract no.08603031 dt.31.7.08.
During the first warranty period i.e. during 24 moths of warranty the Maruti Swift car of complainant started several problems and defects which has been complained before o.ps. during free services and also subsequently too. O.ps. attended all the complaints and tried to repair the defects by way of replacing several spare parts but all in vain and still all the defects are existing. Having no other alternative complainant wrote one letter dt.4.9.09 to o.p. no.1 and stated the following defects: (a) swift car has back (dikie) noise while driving and service centres are not able to overcome the problem permanently as it seems to be a manufacturing defect, (b) the swift car has problems like rust has been observed at the vertical post of the both door and all the four wheel rims, (c) pre-coating defects prior to the painting / powder coating or due to insufficient amount of thickness of painting/ powder coating. By this letter complainant requested for necessary steps to resolve the problem as also to depute one senior engineer who can after inspection of the car detected the cause of defects and to maintain quality in repairing.
O.ps. after receiving the said letter dt.4.9.09 attempted to repair the defects of swift car so that complainant will run the same upto his satisfaction but all in vain. Complainant sent another letter dt.11.3.10 to o.p. no.1 and complained about rusting of the car parts mainly vertical part and four wheel rings which were very much visible from the outside. In this letter complainant further stated that o.ps. duty manager Mr. Rejendra Mishra along with one representative of Auto Hi-tech Mr. Naha had visited the placed and upon joint inspection of the car they were also surprised about such rusting the thereby they advised the complainant to send the car to their workshop for repair. And after various follow up the rusted parts were replaced being Job card no.JC09009455 dt.1.12.09 and JC09011570 dt.22.1.10. In this letter complainant further submits that noise of the car getting more and more for which complainant wanted to check the car properly and during the proper inspection of the car at the o.ps. workshop complainant was shocked to find that the body of the car has severally rusted and the structure of the car has been eaten up and probably that was the cause of increasing noise as the body joint was detached. Complainant presumed that there was some defects right at the manufacturing stage and thereby the car is facing minimum expected life for run.
Complainant having no response from the side of o.ps. again sent another letter dt.22.3.10 to o.p. no.1 and requested for replacement of the said defective car by a new one within fort night. O.p. no.1 received the said letter but kept silent in the matter. Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
Decision with reasons:
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In their w/v o.p. nos.1 and 2 stated that as customer friendly approach the vehicle was attended as per the terms of warranty and demanded repairs needed during the use of the vehicle along with normal routine services as per maintenance schedule were carried out by o.p. no.3 unequivocally and to entire satisfaction of the complainant. It is vehemently denied that all the alleged defects are still existing or are manufacturing defects as alleged by complainant. It is submitted that complainant himself has assessed manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which complainant is neither qualified nor have any expertise to comment. It is submitted that o.ps. have fulfilled their obligations unequivocally as per the terms and conditions of warranty at all times whenever the vehicle was presented for obtaining services. It is pertinent to note that as evident from vehicle history, complainant pointed out the alleged problem of dickey noise for the first time on 11.11.09 at the time of obtaining 4th paid service at 22,881 kms (2881 kms in excess of stipulated mileage of 20,000 kms) and rusting in vehicle on 1.12.10 at the time of obtaining running repairs, after approx 18 months of purchase of vehicle and plying more than 23,000 kms, at the workshop of o.p. no.3. O.p. no.3 carried out thorough inspection of vehicle and found the rusting of vehicle is not due to any manufacturing defect. Since corrosion of body parts is not covered under ambit of warranty of extended warranty.
The paining of the car is lengthy and exhaustive process taking approximately 8 hours during which the car body travels more than 3 kms on a conveyor. Before doing actual painting, car body goes through pre-treatment process. This is followed by first coat of paint called Electro Deposition (ED) soluble paint. Paint is deposited on the car body in the same manner as electroplating operation.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.ps. after receiving the said letter dt.4.9.09 attempted to repair the defects of swift car so that complainant will run the same upto his satisfaction but all in vain. Complainant sent another letter dt.11.3.10 to o.p. no.1 and complained about rusting of the car parts mainly vertical part and four wheel rings which were very much visible from the outside. In this letter complainant further stated that o.ps. duty manager Mr. Rejendra Mishra along with one representative of Auto Hi-tech Mr. Naha had visited the placed and upon joint inspection of the car they were also surprised about such rusting the thereby they advised the complainant to send the car to their workshop for repair. And after various follow up the rusted parts were replaced being Job card no.JC09009455 dt.1.12.09 and JC09011570 dt.22.1.10. In this letter complainant further submits that noise of the car getting more and more for which complainant wanted to check the car properly and during the proper inspection of the car at the o.ps. workshop complainant was shocked to find that the body of the car has severally rusted and the structure of the car has been eaten up and probably that was the cause of increasing noise as the body joint was detached. Complainant presumed that there was some defects right at the manufacturing stage and thereby the car is facing minimum expected life for run. Complainant having no response from the side of o.ps. again sent another letter dt.22.3.10 to o.p. no.1 and requested for replacement of the said defective car by a new one within fort night. O.p. no.1 received the said letter but kept silent in the matter.
It appears from the inspection report that as per vehicle verification the said vehicle became partially rusted due to bad quality of metal used in that vehicle or improper paint used at the time of painting defective technical treatments has been done at the end of the manufacturer of the vehicle registration no.WB 06/2169. In course of physical inspection it appears that no accidental dense found in the body of the vehicle.
That being the position and having regards to the entire materials on record we are of the view that the vehicle had manufacturing defect and o.p. nos.1 and 2 had profuse deficiency being service providers to the consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and dismissed on contest without cost against o.p. no.3. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.4,05,829/- (Rupees four lakhs five thousand eight hundred twenty nine) only being the cost price of the vehicle in question and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is directed to return the vehicle in question to o.ps. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the entire awarded sum as above.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
