Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/941/2017

Amit Kohar son of late Shri Dharam Pal Kohar, resident of HOuse No. 5293, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv. Prateek Pandit

25 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	941 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	18.12.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	25.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Amit Kohar son of Late Sh.Dharam pal Kohar, resident of H.No.5293, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh.    

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., having its registered office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

 

2]  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., having its regional office at SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160018 through its Regional Service Manager.

 

3]  Stan Autos Pvt. Ltd., #Plot No.9, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160001 through its Managing Director/General Manager.  

 

4]  Stan Auto Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.B-42, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Service Manager 

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH. RAVINDER SINGH        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Prateek Pandit, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Salil Sablok, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

Sh.Amish Goel, Adv. for OPs No.3 & 4.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant purchased car Maruti Suzuki Ignis Petrol Zeta Model Automatic from Opposite Party No.1, through its dealer Opposite Party No.3, on 21.9.2017 by making payment of Rs.6,74,160/- (Ann.C-1 colly.).  It is averred that after one week of the purchase of car, brake noise was noticed coming from the front wheel of the car while applying the brakes.  The matter was reported to OPs No.3 & 4 on 27.9.2017, who checked it and gave remarks ‘Disc Brake clean, Vehicle under warranty” (Ann.C-3).  However, just after a week, the brake noise again started coming from the car, so the matter was again reported to Opposite Party No.4, who returned the vehicle with remarks “Brake noise under observation, Brake pad order” (Ann.C-4).  It is submitted that the brake noise was still coming from the car and as such, the car was handed over to Opposite Party No.4 for rectifying the defect, who returned the car on 13.11.2017 after replacing the disc rotors with remarks “Disc rotors replaced for the concern of noise on braking at initial moment. After the washing of disc rotor it is found normal as per the standard fitment. Demo car is also compared” (Ann.C-7).  It is pleaded that the Opposite Party NO.4 on 13.11.2017 while delivering the car did not give in writing that the car is free from defect, which shows that there is manufacturing defect in the car in question, which cannot be rectified and therefore, the same defect “brake noise” is coming again and again from the car in question.  Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice to Opposite Parties on 21.11.2017 (Ann.C-8) for replacing the vehicle or refund the money thereof, but to no avail. It is also averred that the Opposite Parties have also charged in excess from the complainant while selling the vehicle in question against its actual price.  Alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to sale & service/repair of the vehicle, denied that the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defect, as alleged by the complainant. It is stated that the vehicle in question has been plied for more than 5539 kilometers as on 17.2.2018 i.e. within the period of five months from the date of purchase.  It is submitted that the complainant in order to build a false and frivolous case, has been reporting alleged problem of brake noise to the workshop whereas the vehicle has been inspected several times and no abnormality as related to noise from brakes has been found in the vehicle.  It is also submitted that vehicle was inspected and found to be in normal working condition, but in order to satisfy the complainant, the brake pads were replaced under warranty, free of cost.  It is further submitted that upon inspection and road test done with complainant, no abnormal noise was found in the vehicle.  It is pleaded that the complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim against answering OPs. It is also pleaded that mere reporting of any problem does not substantiate the existence of the same. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         The Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 have also filed reply and admitted the sale and service of the vehicle in question.  The Opposite Party No.3 & 4 while taking the same plea, as has been taken by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, have stated that after complete inspection carried out by the technician of answering OPs, it had been observed that due to excess splashing of water on the wheels, thick layer of rust had been occurred on the disc rotors and only due to said reasons the noise from brake pads had been coming again and again and as such, the complainant has been advised not to splash excess water on the said wheels.  It is submitted that the brake pads of both sides of front wheel of the vehicle in question had been replaced and for the satisfaction of the complainant, road test had also been conducted by the Service Engineer while taking the test drive and when the complainant had completely agreed with the service, only thereafter the vehicle had been returned to him. It is stated that in the absence of expert evidence, it cannot be alleged by the complainant that the vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defect. Denying all other allegations of the complainant and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs NO.3 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complainant and controverting that of the OPs made in their respective reply.

 

4]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       Admittedly, the vehicle in question purchased by the complainant on 21.9.2017 developed problem in the front braking system thereby creating abnormal noise while applying brakes during drive.  Since, the vehicle was within warranty period, so the necessary repairs were done by the OPs free of cost, but when the problem again reported, the OPs replaced the brake disc rotors of the car. 

 

7]       The record reveals that after replacing the disc rotors, a note was appended on the Job Card dated 13.11.2017 (Ann.C-7) by the concerned Official of Service Centre of OPs to the effect that “disc rotors replaced for the concern of noise on braking at initial movement, after the washing of disc rotors it is found normal as per the standard fitment, demo vehicle is also compared.”

 

8]       The complainant alleged that despite the replacement of brake disc rotors, the problem of noise in the braking system still persist in the car while applying brake during drive and for that, the complainant also appended a note on the said Job Card (Ann.C-7) to the effect that “Today before the delivery of car in question, I take the test drive & again found the same noise while applying brakes.  I take the car under protest.”

 

9]       The complainant vide present complaint while alleging manufacturing defect in the car in question asked for replacement of the vehicle with one new.  However, the said allegation qua manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question has not been substantiated by any expert opinion by the complainant.  Thus, the allegation of the complainant with regard to manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question is devoid of any cogent and material evidence on record.  Therefore, no case of replacement of the car in question with new one, is made out in favour of the complainant. For such opinion, we are guided by catena of judgments of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it has been settled that to prove manufacturing defect, expert opinion is must.

          

10]      At the time of arguments, it has been vehemently asserted by the ld.Counsel for complainant that despite of replacement of the brake disc rotors and brake pads, still the problem of abnormal noise from the braking system, while applying brake during drive, is persisting and claimed that he also took the delivery of the car under protest and as such, the complainant could not enjoy the comfort of the car, free from any problem, after making handsome payment to the Opposite Parties towards the price of the car.  

 

11]      We do find force in this contention of ld.Counsel for the complainant. Certainly, the complainant, even after spending a huge amount of more than Rs.6 lacs on the purchase of the car in question, could not enjoy the smooth and problem free ride of the vehicle in question due to problem of abnormal noise coming from the front braking system of the vehicle while applying brake during drive, which the OPs failed to remove to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of OPs is writ large.    

        

12]      Taking into consideration the entire facts & circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to direct the Opposite Parties to check the problem persisting in the vehicle thoroughly and carry out necessary repairs or replace the necessary parts, free of cost, to remove the defect of abnormal noise coming from the front braking system of the car. Apart from it, we also deem it proper to grant a reasonable amount of compensation to the complainant taking in view the mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant for not enjoying the trouble free ride of the newly purchased vehicle for which he spent a handsome amount.  Due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has also been thrusted with unwarranted litigation.

 

13]      From the above observations, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved, as a result the complainant has suffered a lot, thus, entitled to be adequately compensated. Therefore, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against OPs. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to thoroughly check the problem persisting in the vehicle and carry out necessary repairs, after replacing the parts, if required, free of cost, to remove the defect of abnormal noise coming from the front braking system of the car. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant on account of the harassment and mental agony suffered by him due to deficient act of Opposite Parties as well as towards depreciation of the value of vehicle due to frequent repairs, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-

         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15,000/- besides the above relief.  

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

25^th July, 2018                                                                              sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER