Delhi

North East

CC/206/2017

Ajay Daksh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 206/17

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ajai Daksh, R/o 106, A-Block, 3rd Floor, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Regd. Office:- Plot No.1, Nelson Mendela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110071   Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Competent House, F-14, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001   Also at:- Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Plot No.3, Gazipur, Delhi-110093	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

22.06.17 06.01.23 10.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the on 26.05.15 he booked a car for a total amount of Rs. 5,53,567/- including loan of Rs. 4.5 lakhs and Opposite Party No.2 issued tax invoice no. VSL15000586 dated 01.07.15. The said vehicle was delivered to Complainant on 02.07.15.  The Opposite Party No.2 assured the Complainant that he will get an extended warranty for amount of Rs. 6,842.28 valid upto 26 June 2019 or upto 80,000 kms whichever was earlier. The Complainant stated that he had paid the full and final payment to Opposite Party No.2 including registration charges, insurance charges etc. and Opposite Party No.2 assured to provide registration and insurance in respect of said car to Complainant. The Complainant stated that after purchasing of the car, he notices some defects in car as defects in pick up of the car and average of the car is not more than 11-12 km/hrs etc. The Complainant made complaint to Opposite Party No.2 on various services of car in question but nothing was done. On 19.11.15 Opposite Party No.2 checked the vehicle in question with another same vehicle and found various defects in the car in question and gave a bogus spot inspection report bearing no. 3173 dated 19.11.15. The Complainant stated that he had already paid a valid consideration to the Opposite Party for warranty of 24 months or 40,000 kms whichever was earlier from the date of delivery by a Maruti retailer or the date of first registration of the motor vehicle, whichever occurs first, with extended warranty upto 26.06.19 or upto 80,000 kms. The Complainant sent emails to Opposite Parties on various dates and received reply dated 24.11.15 and 16.12.15 and the Complainant also visited Opposite Party various times but of no use. The Complainant stated that the car in question lying with Opposite Party No.2 since 17.06.16. The Complainant approached J.J Impex Delhi Ltd. (Maruti Service Master) which also an authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1. on advice of Official Regional Service Manager of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. On the advice of Authorized RSM officer Hashim of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on 02.09.21 the Complainant bought his car on the above service centre and after inspection the engineer found fault in AC and the car was given for repair of AC fault from 02.03.21 to 09.09.21 after the service the Complainant got to know that there was fault in the condenser and cooling coil. The J.K tyre and industries ltd. replace all 4 tyres after payment of depreciate amount on dated 01.11.18.  Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,53,567/- along with interest thereon @ 18 % p.a. from the date of receipt of this amount of sale consideration  or alternative replace/change the car with new model and also to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 25,000/- litigation cost, jointly and severally.   

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that on 19.11.15 the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 and after inspection no abnormality was found in the vehicle. It is stated that as on 15.09.18 the vehicle has done more than 39,507 kms which shows that vehicle has been extensively used by the Complainant. It is stated that the allegation made by the Complainant are false. It is stated that it sells vehicles to the authorised dealers and the relationship between the Opposite Parties is principal to principal. It is stated that mileage of the vehicle depends upon the several factors such as driving habits, gear changing pattern, use of AC and air pressure in the tyres etc. It has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.2 that the complaint is bogus and false. It is stated that whenever the Complainant visited its workshop, always satisfactory services were given in respect of the car. It is stated that AC of the car was got checked by the manufacturer of the AC and it was found that it was functioning properly. The tyres of the car were checked by the JK Tyre Co. Ltd. the manufacturer of the tyres and they did not find anything wrong. It is stated that mileage of the vehicle depend upon various factors such as driving skills,  use of more clutch, break and over speed etc. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Gagan Eash Koshti, Territory Service Manager of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Shri Surendra Singh Negi, AWM of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statements of respective Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by parties.
7. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a car Maruti Celerio from Opposite Party No.2 on 16.03.15. It is his case that the mileage of the said car was not up to the mark and its AC was also not functioning properly. It is his case that the vehicle was giving very low mileage and the tyres were also defective. It is also his grievance that the pick up of the car was not good. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that there was not defect in the car and the car was functioning properly.
8. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the case of the Complainant is that there are manufacturing defects in the car such as low mileage, defective tyres, low pick up and faulty AC. It is settled law that the Complainant has to prove the manufacturing defect. Apart from his affidavit, the Complainant has not filed any other evidence such as report of any Expert/Engineer in order to prove his allegations. The perusal of the order sheet dated 31.05.18 shows that the Complainant stated that he did not file rejoinder. Meaning thereby the Complainant has not rebutted the defence of the Opposite Parties nor the Complainant has led any evidence in this regard. It is also admitted that as on 15.09.18 the vehicle has done more than 39,507 kms. Had there been any manufacturing defect as alleged by the Complainant, the vehicle could not have done 39,507 kms.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. The complaint is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 10.04.23

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President