Haryana

StateCommission

A/345/2019

KULBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

RAMANDEEP SINGH

09 Sep 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.345 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 11.04.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 09.09.2019

 

 

 

Kulbir Singh son of Shri Dilbag Singh, resident of VPO Uchana Khurd, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind (Haryana).

 

 

…..Complainant- Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Unique Motors (P) Ltd., authorized Maruti Suzuki dealer, Delhi Road, Opp. Jindal Marg, Industrial Area, Hisar, Haryana, its Managing Director.

 

3.      Managing Director, Unique Motors (P) Ltd., authorized Maruti Suzuki dealer, Delhi Road Opp. Jindal Marg, Industrial Area, Hisar.

 

…..Opposite Parties-Respondents

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Ramandeep Singh, counsel for the appellant.

                    

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The complainant has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by learned District Forum, Hisar, whereby the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stood dismissed.

2.      According to the complainant, he had bought a new Maruti Suzuki Ciaz VDI (Diesel) car from Moden Automobiles, authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited. He was assured that the vehicle was high end luxury car, which would not cause any type of problem for at least 5 years. Opposite party No.1 also gave additional warranty for 2 years over the existing warranty of 2 years for which the complainant was duly charged. The car was serviced from the authorized service centre-opposite party No.2 who befooled the complainant at various instances, firstly, by using wrong engine oil fluid i.e. using a petrol grade engine oil (MGO) (5W30) (IOCL) in a diesel car whereas the recommended one was MGDO-5W30; secondly, by charging exorbitant and unnecessary costs in the service amount. The services were done at the premises of opposite party No.2 on 24.9.2016 and 28.2.2017. The complainant became aware of this fact after he diligently compared the parts number and grade of products from the service manual provided along with car. The complainant was traumatized after he noticed such a big carelessness and negligence from the side of opposite party No.2 and that too a number of times. Opposite party No.2 had also assured in writing about use of correct engine oil on a bill dated 17.6.2017, which was a lie on the face as the product names and description of oil used by opposite party No.2 was completely different from the one recommended by opposite party No.1 in their service manual. The complainant wrote various mails to both opposite party No.1 as well as opposite party No.2 but none of them replied to his satisfaction and the mistake was admitted by the opposite parties in one reply dated 14.3.2017 from Regional Service Manager of opposite party No.1 stating it to be a clerical mistake of the service advisor for wrong entry but he did not admit the technical mistake of putting in wrong oil. The complainant checked the same from another authorized dealer and service provider of opposite party No.1 in order to verify the same, who informed him that the wrong engine oil was used at various instances due to which the warranty of the engine and the extended warranty stood void. This came as a trauma to the complainant against assurances given to him regarding the extended warranty. He was also informed that due to that reason his car was not working properly and giving less fuel efficiency than the one assured. Opposite party No.2 also befooled the complainant by emotionally influencing him to sign the satisfaction note of the service bill and at times had mentioned the same as the reason so as to why the complainant could not question the service done by opposite party No.2. The loss caused to his car was beyond repair. The car did not work properly and the engine caused disturbing and high levels of sound and pollution harming all others along with the complainant. The engine of the car automatically turned off anywhere and anytime posing a great risk to the life of complainant and his family besides others on the road. The car had only covered around 30000 kms. and was not in a fit condition to be driven. The mistake committed by opposite party No.2 was a big mistake but the ignorance of opposite party No.1 was even graver. It was because of this level of damage to the car and the problem faced by the complainant that the opposite parties were liable to replace the car completely. Hence, the complaint wherein the complainant sought issuance of directions to the opposite parties to replace the car and pay `1 lakh as compensation on account of mental agony, economic losses apart from litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, opposite party No.1 filed the written version taking preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant entered into an independent transaction for purchase of the vehicle in question with Modern Automobiles, Hisar to which the answering opposite party was neither party nor received any consideration for the same. It was further submitted that no assurance of any kind was given to the complainant. The vehicle in question had a manufacturer’s warranty for 24 months or 40000 kms., whichever was earlier. The complainant availed extended warranty, which started after expiry of manufacturer’s warranty and was valid upto another 40000 kms. or 2 years, whichever was earlier. It was denied that opposite party No.2 befooled the complainant on four different occasions by using wrong engine oil i.e. petrol grade engine oil in a diesel car and by charging exorbitant and unnecessary costs or that there was negligence on the part of opposite party No.2 or that opposite party No.2 had assured the use of correct engine on bill dated 17.6.2017 or that the mistake was admitted by opposite parties in reply dated 14.3.2017 by Regional Service Manager stating it to be a clerical mistake of the service advisor for wrong entry as alleged. The vehicle in question was attended as per the terms of the warranty and on every occasion of service, correct engine oil had been used in the vehicle. The vehicle was sent for periodic maintenance service on 24.9.2016 at 19581 kms. and the vehicle was delivered after carrying out proper service as per the terms and conditions of warranty. The vehicle was again sent for periodic maintenance service on 28.2.2017 at 30192 kms.  If the engine oil used in the vehicle on the previous service was petrol gradient then the vehicle would not have plied for another 10000 kms. as was evident from the record. Proper service was carried out and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. During this service, MGDO5W30 engine oil was put in the vehicle. However, due to clerical mistake of executive of opposite party No.2 wrong grade of engine oil against the vehicle in question was mentioned. The vehicle was then inspected and it was verified that correct engine oil was used in the vehicle, which was as per the standards. The same was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 11.3.2017 and e-mail dated 14.3.2017. The complainant was also informed that the vehicle in question was under warranty and would remain under warranty policy with same terms and conditions. Hence, the dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.      Opposite party No.2 filed separate written version taking preliminary objections. On merits, it was specifically denied that opposite party No.2 befooled the complainant on four occasions, firstly by using wrong engine oil fluid and secondly for charging exorbitant and unnecessary costs in the service amount. It was also denied that any alleged assurance was ever given as was tried to be made out. False, frivolous and vexatious allegations have been levelled by the complainant. As a matter of fact, there was no such alleged negligence on the part of opposite party No.2. As regards using the wrong engine oil, it was submitted that it was only due to clerical omission because at the time of conducting the service of the vehicle, the competent technician was not available at that time and a new boy who was kept as a labour had gone to place the order and he inadvertently spoken about the petrol engine oil. However, the engine oil used in the vehicle was exclusively diesel engine oil, which could be noticed from the fact that had the wrong engine oil been used by the answering opposite party then as per the motor phenomena a vehicle could not run for more than 4-5 kms. but in the instant case after the service of the vehicle, it ran for more than 7000 kms. without any problem, which showed that only clerical mistake had occurred. However, opposite party No.2 after realizing this mistake had apologized to the complainant but the complainant found the same to be an earning technique and started threatening opposite party No.2 to pay money to him. All other allegations were denied.

5.      Opposite party No.3 did not put in appearance before the learned District Forum and was accordingly proceeded ex parte.

6.      In support of his case, the complainant placed on record affidavit (Exhibit PW1/A) and documents (Exhibits P-1 to P-7). On the other hand, opposite party No.1 placed on record affidavit (Exhibit RW1/A) and documents (Exhibits R-1 to R-5) whereas opposite party No.2 made a statement that written version filed on its behalf may be read as evidence.

7.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum found no merit in the complaint and accordingly dismissed the same.

8.      Having heard learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that though the complainant alleged that the opposite parties wrongly used petrol grade engine oil in a diesel car whereas according to opposite party No.2 proper engine oil was used but due to clerical omission in the job card, wrong description of engine oil was mentioned. In fact the engine oil used in the vehicle was exclusively diesel engine oil. In case petrol engine oil had been used by opposite party No.2 then as per the motor phenomena a vehicle could not run for more than 4-5 kms. However, after service of the vehicle of the complainant, it ran for more than 7000 kms. without any problem. As per Exhibit R-2 placed on record by opposite party No.2, the vehicle of the complainant had run for more than 40000 kms.  The complainant has not been able to place any material on record that even if any mistake had been committed by opposite party No.2, it had damaged the engine to any extent.

9.      In view of the above, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, resultantly, dismissed.

 

 

Announced 09.09.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.