- Shomir Choudhuri,
8/1B, Charke Street, P.S. Kalighat, Kolkata-26._________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Jeevan Prakash, 11th Floor,
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi 110001.
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
L & T Chamber, 4th Floor,
16, Camac Street,
P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-17.
- Mechino Techno Sales Ltd.
Jindal House, 8A, Alipore Road,
P.S. Alipore, Kolkata-27.________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 42 Dated 12-05-2016.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had purchased a new Maruti 800 AC (BS-III) car on 27.6.08 through the canteen store department from Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. The car has been registered and being numbered WB-06-1927, being chassis no.2687888 and being engine no.3869716. The said car has been purchased by complainant at a cost of Rs.1,92,825/-. A copy of the said indent-cum-invoice has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-A.
Complainant stated that from the very first day of purchase of the said car it started giving problems. The rear side of the car started making noises.
Complainant further stated that on 10.7.08 the noise started again from the rear side of the vehicle for much longer period and for which the said car was taken to Maruti authorized service centre of o.p. no.4. Complainant stated that the representative of the service centre applied grese and delivered the car to him.
Complainant once again took the car to the workshop of o.p. on 19.3.09 for the same problem. A copy of the job card dt.19.3.09 has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-B.
Complainant further stated that the representative of o.p. has accepted that there is some problem in the suspension of the vehicle. But even then they have failed to rectify the defect. In this connection complainant has annexed a copies of two letters dt.22.4.09 and 5.6.09 issued by o.ps. with the petition of complaint as annex-C.
Complainant further stated that the car was again taken to the workshop of o.ps. on 27.7.09. The car was kept at the workshop of o.ps. for three days to detect the problem. A photocopy of the job card dt.27.7.09 has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-D. Complainant has also annexed a copy of satisfaction certificate dt.30.7.09 with the petition of complaint as annex-E in which the representative of o.ps. has stated a bit detail of the defect as has been detected by them. Thereafter complainant sent an advocate’s letter to o.ps. stating in details regarding the problem faced by him interalia prayed for refund of the cost price of the said car as well as compensation etc. A copy of the said letter has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-F. O.ps. had replied the said letter dt.7.9.09 and interalia stated that hopefully they would be able to resolve the minor problem as has been faced by complainant in the car in question. A copy of the said letter has been annexed by complainant in the running page 21 of the complaint petition.
At last finding no other alternative complainant filed the instant case before this Forum with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1 to 3 appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and contested the case. In spite of receipt of notice o.p. no.4 did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.4.
In their w/v, O.p. nos.1 to 3 interalia stated that M/s Auto Hitech Pvt. Ltd., C.N. Road, Kolkata ought to have been impleaded as a party of the case and without whom the instant case cannot be adjudicated since they are the workshop of the vehicle in question. O.ps. also stated that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet and was grossly neglected in proper servicing and maintenance of the vehicle in question. O.ps. have stated that complainant has made a vexatious petition and prayed for dismissal of the case since they have not made any deficiency of service to complainant.
Decision with reasons:
Ld. advocate for o.ps. was absent at the time of hearing of the case. O.ps. were absent on 23.3.15. A cost had been imposed of Rs.1500/- which was not paid by o.ps. On 12.5.15 o.ps. were also absent and cost was not paid. Thereafter on 16.6.15 o.ps. were again absent and cost was not paid. Finally on the date of hearing i.e. 22.4.16 o.ps. were not present and not paid cost and for which this Forum heard complainant alone since it is an old pending case of 2010.
Upon considering the submissions of complainant alone and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, it appears from annex-C of the petition of complaint wherein the Territory Service Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. by his letter dt.22.4.09 addressed to complainant apologized for the defect of the car in question. Beside this, the said Service Manager also stated that he would like to offer the complainant a complementary washing and polishing and thorough check up of the car as a goodwill gesture. In the said letter the above mentioned Service Manager also stated that a complementary wheel balancing would also be provided by them to complainant during the next visit at the workshop.
It also appears from annex-E of the petition of complaint that o.ps. also interalia stated through a certificate dt.30.7.09 that repeated sound occurred apparently from rear suspension / shocker. In the said certificate it is also stated that poor quality control at Maruti factory resulted in repeated harassment to the customer. The said certificate dt.30.7.09 had been issued by Machino Techno Sales Ltd., Darga Road, Kolkata.
In fine, upon considering the above observation and on perusal of the entire materials on record, this Forum observed that when the representative of o.ps. had admitted the defects of the car in question in the forgoing paragraph, so question of evidence by the person qualified to state that the vehicle is in manufacturing defect does not arise since the representative of o.ps. i.e. car manufacturing company might be considered as qualified to state in respect of manufacturing defect of the vehicle in question.
After threadbare discussions of the above this Forum holds that o.ps. had made sufficiency deficiency of service as 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 to 3 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.4. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,92,825/- (Rupees one lakh ninety two thousand eight hundred twenty five) only to the complainant being the cost price of the car in question and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees 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 also directed to return the car in question to the competent representative of o.ps. at the time of receiving the decretal amount.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
