Haryana

Panchkula

CC/58/2019

AMRIK SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

VISHAL SAINI

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	58 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	29.01.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.11.2022

 

 

Amrik   Singh s/o Sh. Gurbhag Singh, resident of Village Johluwal, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana

 

     ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Nelso Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, India through its MD/Director/CEO/EO/Manager.

2.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Old Palam Gurgaon road, Gurugrum, Haryana-122015, India through its MD/Director/CEO/EO/Manager.

3.     GND Automotive, D-7, Sector-X, Noida, 201301 UP, through its MD/Director/CEO/EO/Manager.

4.     Modern Automobiles, SCO 411, Sector-8, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Vishal Sahani, Advocate for the complainant.  

                        Sh. Salil Sablok, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        Sh. Ravi Kumar, Authorised representative of OP No.3.                     (OP No.3 already given up vide order dated 30.9.2022.

                        OP No.4 already ex-parte vide order dated 10.05.2019.

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle make Maruti Suzuki Swift model 2017 from Modern Automobiles i.e. OP No.4 with additional warranty on 21.10.2017. Thereafter, he completed all the mandatory services as praised by the company. About one year of the purchase of vehicle in the month of November/December 2018, the vehicle has broken down and its engine seized and ultimately taken to the OP No.4 for repair as it fails under warranty period. After checking the car in question, the OP No.4 contacted with OPs No.1 to 3 and they declined to repair the said vehicle on warranty. The OPs instead of accepting that the car was having manufacturing defect, was levelled oral allegations that car was strucked down in flooded area and water logged and this cause damage to the engine. No written intimation was given till date. It is pertinent to mention here that neither November/December was a rainy season nor any flood type situations arose in the area of Pinjore-Kalkaor village Johluwal in November/December 2018. It is alleged that after many demands and various requests, the OP No.4 in connivance with OPs No.1 to 3 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/- for repair the cabin which had manufacturing defect and when the complainant did not agreed, they returned his vehicle without repair. Instead of settling the claim of the complainant, the Ops again are orally asking for rent for parking charges of his vehicle with OP No.4.  Ultimately the complainant who had already suffered a great loss due to delivery of manufacturing defect in the vehicle and great business loss due to non availability of any vehicle as such also depend on public vehicle and Taxi services. Due to the act and conduct of OP No.1, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss, mental agony and harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua its maintainability being frivolous; no cause of action and baseless and concealed the true material facts. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs No.1 & 2 as defined U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of OP No.4 on 10.12.2018 and engine not starting was reported as demanded repairs by the complainant. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that the damage to the vehicle in question was due to water entry in the engine causing Hydrostatic Lock. The repairs for the same are not covered under warranty as per Clause 4(5) as enumerated in the Owner’s Manual being negligence on the part of the complainant. Due to this reason the repairs could not be covered under the ambit of warranty and had to be carried out on payment basis. The same was also communicated to the complainant vide email dated 17.12.2018 and 07.02.2019 and approval was sought for carrying out the necessary repairs. But the complainant has not provided approval till date. The Ops No.1 & 2 are only responsible for providing  warranty services during the warranty period i.e. 2 years or 40,000 kms, from the date of sale. On merits, it is denied that OP No.4 on instructions and connivance with OPs No.1 to 3 convinced the complainant to purchase additional warranty for the newly purchased vehicle as alleged. The Ops sells its products to its authorized dealers and the relationship between the OPs No.1 & 2 and the dealer is that on Principal to Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the OPs. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of OP No.4 on 10.12.2018 and engine not starting was reported as demanded repairs by the complainant. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that the engine was damaged due to water entry into the vehicle and the connecting rod was bent  which caused further consequential damage to the engine assembly. The alleged problem happens when the vehicle is driven in water causing ‘HYDRASTATIC LOCK’. It is submitted that the pattern of breakage of connecting rod is a clear indicator of Hydrostatic Lock which caused the alleged damage to the engine. Therefore, the damage to the engine was due to negligence of the complainant and the repairs were not covered under warranty. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through authorized representative and filed written statement. It is stated that OP No.3 is not manufacturer of car nor supplier. It is only supplying accessories which include speakers, audio system and reverse parking assistance system, which is nowhere related to functioning of car and all products are accessories. It is stated that non functioning of any of parts cannot lead to non functioning of engine/car or broke down of engine and its products which are fitted in car, are supplied by them to Maruti, who in turn fitted in the car of complainant. The purpose of warranty mentioned in warranty card is limited for warranty of its products namely car audio system, car speakers and other parts supplied by it, if provided by manufacturer(Maruti). The OP No.3 is ready to provide any service including replacement of their products, if found defective, since its products fitted in the said car are under warranty period.    

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 to 2 tendered affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith Annexure R-1 to R-7 and closed the evidence. The authorized representative of the OP No.3 tendered affidavit Annexure R-3/A and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record available on file including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for complainant as well as OPs No.1 & 2, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, a vehicle, namely, Maruti Suzuki Swift model 2017 having an extended warranty, as per Annexure C-3, up to 20.10.2021 or up to 80000kms., was purchased by the complainant from OP No.4 on 21.10.2017. Undisputedly, the said vehicle consequent upon its break down and seizing of its engine was brought in the workshop of OP no.4 in the month of November, 2018 for carrying out the necessary repair. The OP No.4 declined to repair the car on free of charge basis and asked the complainant to permit the repairs of vehicle on payment basis.

                As per complainant the break-down of the vehicle occurred within the warranty period, so the act on the part of the OPs asking him to make the payment for the repairing of the vehicle was neither valid nor justified. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint and relying upon the expert report dated 13.07.2021 as received from Senior Mechanical Engineer, Government Central Workshop, Chandigarh vide memo no.415, has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the OPs No.1,2 & 4 to grant the relief as claimed in the compliant.

6.             The OPs No.1 & 2, who is manufacturer of the vehicle in question, has strongly contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in its written statement. As per preliminary objections, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer.

                This objection deserves outright dismissal as the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant in lieu of consideration and the same was the product of the OPs No.1 & 2; thus, this objection is rejected.

                The next objection is that the vehicle in question got damaged on account of water entry in the engine causing Hydrostatic lock, whereby the warranty condition contained in Clause4(5) as enumerated in owner’s manual as per Para No.5 of the written statement was  violated. It is also stated that a vehicle had a warranty of two years or 40000kms from the date of sale.

                The above averments qua warranty period is incorrect in view of the extended warranty given by the OP No.1 upto 20.10.2021 or upto 80000kms vide Annexure C-3. The main plea  raised in the present complaint by the OPs No.1 & 2  while  denying the repairs  of vehicle on free of charges basis is that the vehicle in question got damaged on account of entry of water in the engine causing Hydrostatic lock, which shall be taken up for consideration in the following para of this order.  

                On merits, the complaint is contested on the ground that the relationship between the manufacturer and its authorized dealer i.e. OP No.1 and the OP No.4 is based on the basis of principals to principal; so  no liability can be imposed on the Ops No.1 & 2 for any lapses on the part of the dealer i.e. OP No.4. Further, the plea of Hydrostatic lock is taken stating that the engineer of the car found damaged on account of water entry into it, causing bent in the connecting rod, which caused further consequential damages to the engine assembly. During the arguments, the learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 vehemently contended that the engine of the vehicle was inspected in order to ascertain the actual problem and after inspection by its engineer, it was found that the connecting rod had got bent due to water entry into engine. The learned counsel denying the manufacturing defect in the vehicle stated that vehicle was driven by the complainant in water causing Hydrostatic Lock. The learned counsel contended that the pattern of breakage of connecting rod was suggestive of Hydrostatic lock which had caused damage to the engine. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the order dated 14.05.2013 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in F.A.No.1763 of 2009 titled as Ashwani Kumar Vs. Ford India Ltd. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment dated 29.03.2006 delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.3734 of 2000 titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr.  

                Further, the learned counsel disputed the findings of the said expert report contending that report is vague and does not specify the exact reason for the alleged break down of the engine. It is contended that the inspection of the vehicle was made on 07.07.2021 after a period of 2 years 7 months; as such, there could not have been any water traces in the engine after such a long period. The learned counsel emphasized that water traces/water was bound to evaporate in such a long period. The learned counsel reiterated the plea that engine of the vehicle had broken down only on account of water entry into it causing Hydrostatic lock and thus, the repair of the vehicle was not covered during warranty as warranty clause4(5) was violated by the complainant. Concluding the arguments the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the complaint being baseless and meritless.

7.             The complainant by making a separate statement on 30.09.2022 has given up OP No.3.  

8.             The OP No.4, where the vehicle is still lying since 10.12.2018 has preferred to remain absent by not contesting the present complaint, thus, the contentions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted against OP No.4.

9.             As per the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, the only issue for adjudication in the present complaint is whether the vehicle had got damaged due to water entry into it causing Hydro Static lock. The complainant has specifically denied, vide para no.5 of the complaint, the driving of vehicle in water or any flooded area; therefore,  a heavy duty was cast upon OPs No.1 & 2 to prove their version by leading cogent, sufficient and adequate evidence that engine of the car had got damaged on account of water entry into it. In this regard, the OPs No.1 & 2 have relied upon the job-sheet(Annexure R-3), which was issued by the OP No.4. Apart from it, photographs of the engine has been placed on record in the shape of Annexure R-4 & Annexure R-4(colly). The learned counsel has also relied upon the email dated 17.12.2018(Annexure R-7), wherein the cause of break-down of the engine was attributed to Hydro Static lock. Except above, there is no other evidence substantiating and corroborating the version of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the plea of Hydrostatic lock. The job-sheet as well as the photograph(Annexure R-3) and Annexure R-4(colly) are of no avail to the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 as the same do not convey anything qua the problem of Hydro Static Lock. As per said email(Annexure R-7), the claim of the complainant was denied only on the ground that there was an expert assessment, based on the pattern of breakage of connecting rod. There is no report of any mechanical engineer substantiating the plea as to what was the pattern of breakage of connecting rod and under what circumstances, the connecting rod gets damaged or broken down. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to establish that a particular or a specific pattern of breakage of connecting rod is conclusive evidence of occurrence of Hydrostatic Lock. As per expert report dated 13.07.2021 as received from Senior Mechanical Engineer, Government Central Workshop, Chandigarh vide memo no. 415, connecting rod of the piston along with engine block of the vehicle was found broken. The said expert opinion also has pointed out that the defect in vehicle was not likely to have occurred on account of water entry into engine. No evidence has been placed on record by OP No.4, whose engineer had allegedly inspected the vehicle.

                The case laws as relied upon by learned counsel for OPs is of no help to their case being distinguishable on facts and law from the facts of the present case.

                In view of these facts and circumstances the plea of the Ops that breakage of the engine had occurred due to water entry into it is found not tenable; therefore, the OPs No.1, 2 & 4 were deficient while not repairing the vehicle during the warranty period; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

10.            In relief, the complainant has claimed a total compensation of Rs.10,08,959/-including the purchase price of the car i..e Rs. 5,53,959/-. Since the grievances of the complainant can be redressed with the replacement of the engine of the vehicle in question with new one, so in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to direct the OPs No.1,2 & 4 to replace the defective engine of the vehicle with new one. Therefore, OPs No.1,2 & 4 are directed to replace the entire engine of the vehicle in question with new one and deliver the same to the complainant after making all other necessary repairs like assembling and servicing etc.  The OPs No.1,2 & 4 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of the fact that complainant was prevented from the use of the vehicle for a long period. However, the prayer of the complainant qua travelling expenses for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is denied.  The OPs No.1,2 & 4 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered  by him and a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation charges.

11.            The OPs No.1, 2 & 4 shall comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1, 2 & 4. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:18.11.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal         

           Member                          Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                               

                                                Member