CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/387/14

          Date of Institution:-    06.06.2014

          Order Reserved on:- 18.03.2024

                      Date of Decision:-      16.08.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashwani Gupta,

S/o Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta,

R/o H. No.841/12, Azad Nagar,

Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                                                        .….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070

2. M/s Karnal Motors P. Ltd.

Kurukshetra Showroom-III,

At Pooja Modern School

Kurukshetra, Haryana

3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Through its official concerns

Quality Testing/Manufacturing Department

Old Palam Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon – 122015

4. Maruti Sales & Service (Delhi)

(A Division of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.)

C-119, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I,

New Delhi - 110028

.…..Opposite Parties

Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member

1. Induced by the attractive advertisement floated by the OPs, the complainant purchased a Maruti Ritz ZDi car on 03.10.2013 from OP-1. The complainant has annexed the copy of the car's gate pass, insurance and RC as AnnexureC-1 Colly.

2. It is alleged by the complainant that since the very first day, the car became defective and undoubtedly had inherent manufacturing defects.He states that in October 2014, after purchasing the car, the complainant noticed the vehicleemitting black smoke and leaving black spots of discharged oil on the back bumper. He reported the issue to OP-2, who assured the complainant that the problem of the emission of black smoke from the vehicle would be resolved automatically after he drove it for a month.

3. The complainant sent the car for repairs on 25.11.2013 while facing the same problem,which continuedafter the first service. During the service,the air filter intercooler was cleaned by OP-2, and his car was kept under observation. AnnexureC-2, dated 25.11.2013, is a copy of the job card issued to the complainant towards this service.

4. Again, on 28.11.2013, the complainant took his vehicle to OP-2 due to poor working of the vehicle. On 03.12.2013, the OP-2 examined the car and changed the turbocharger assembly. On 04.12.2013 and 09.12.2013, the complainant took his car to OP-2 as the problem of black smoke emission persisted, which OP-2 could not resolve. AnnexureC-3(colly)is the job cards issued towards the complainant's visits to OP-2 on 28.11.2013, 03.12.2013, 04.12.2013 and 09.12.2013 annexed with the complaint.

5. On 18.12.2013, the complainant noticed leakage from the battery,for which he took his car to the OP-2 service centre of OP-1.The defective battery was replaced with its service battery and later the original battery on 20.12.2013.AnnexureC-4 colly is the copy of the job card dated 18.12.2013 and 20.12.2013 wherein the complainant has remarked "Not OK"as he was not satisfied with the service of OP-2.

6. The complainant was forced to take his car to OP-2 on 11.01.2014 due to the continuous smoke emission (AnnxureC-5), but despite repeated repairs and changing of parts, OP-2 was unable to resolve his grievance and was not able to find a solution to the problem.

7. Alleging that the car is defective, the complainant states that the deficient service of OP-2 had caused immense pain, suffering and financial loss to the complainant, due to which he issued a legal notice dated 18.01.2014 and letter dated 24.01.2014 to the OPs (AnnexureC-6 Colly and C-7 Colly)respectively. OP-2 replied to his legal notice on 29.01.2014, a copy of which the complainant has annexed with his complaint at AnnexureC-8.

8. The complainant also wrote a letter to OP-1 on 03.03.2014 requesting OP-1 to check the vehicle (AnnexureC-9 Colly). However, OP-1 did not take any action to address his grievance. The complainant,after that, made a complaint on 20.03.2014 to the customer care vide complaint no.9551313757. On the advice of the customer care executive, the complainant took his car to OP-4 on 22.03.2014,where it was serviced and delivered to the complainant. AnnexureC-10 is the job card issued by OP-4 towards the service of the complainant's vehicle dated 22.03.2014.
9. After a few days, the complainant again noticed the black spots on the back bumper of his car and immediately lodged the complaint with customer care on 05.04.2014. He received a call from OP-4 and,upon their request, took his car to OP-4 on 08/04/2014. After due checking, the vehicle was returned to the complainant, and the job card was issued towards the repair (AnnexureC-11).

10. The complainant alleges that the problem of black smoke emission still continued,due to which the complainant sent a letter to OP-1 again on 21.04.2014 to rectify the problem with the vehicle (AnnexureC-12).

11. When the OPs did not address his genuine grievance despite repeated requests, the complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum on 06.06.2014, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. He has sought directions to the OPs to replace the vehicle with a new one or alternatively to rectify the defect permanently, pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh on account of damages and mental harassment suffered by him, along with litigation charges.

12. On notice, OP-1, 3 & 4 filed theirreply. OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2015 when the complainant filed proof of adequate service qua OP-2.

13. In their joint reply, OP-1, 3, and 4 stated that as the manufacturer of the vehicle, OP-1, 3, and 4 are limited to providing warranty benefits as per clause 3 of the warranty policy as set out in the owner's manual and service booklet. The complainant is bound by specific terms of warranty as enumerated in the service booklet and owner's manual. At the time of purchase, the vehicle in question was defect-free and in roadworthy condition. However, the complainant, having used adulterated fuel in his car, violated the warranty terms and conditions under Clause 4 (e & h) of the warranty policy. Despite the complainant having violated the warranty terms and conditions,the vehicle was attended to under warranty as a goodwill gesture. Hence no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice was committed by the OPs in this case.

14. Further, the OPs state that the cause of the alleged problem of black smoke was due to the adulterated fuel in the vehicle and the replacement of the Turbocharger Assembly by OP-2 on 03.12.2013 at 750kmswas the result of consequential damage caused to the components of the carbecause of use of adulterated fuel.As a goodwill gesture, the OPs replaced the Turbocharger Assembly as the vehicle was under warranty without any cost to the complainant.

15. No other problem was found on 04.12.2013 or 09.12.2013,as alleged by the complainant.So far as the change of battery on 20.12.2013 at 1344kms when the complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop of OP-2. The workshop's service engineer checked the leakage, removed the battery, andgavethe service battery on 18.12.2013 to keep it under sufficient observation, which was then refitted on 20.12.2013 in the complainant's vehicle along with demanded repairs.

16. The OPs deny that the vehicle was emitting black smoke on 11.01.2014. They claim that the car was attended to in the OP-2 workshop. It was scanned for any abnormality using SDT (special tool),but no error code was received, clarifying that the car was in perfect and defect-free condition, as also reflected in the records filed.
17. The OPs, in their reply, submit that it was the complainant who was negligent and careless about the proper maintenance of the vehicle and used adulterated fuel in the car in question. Denying any deficient service, the OPs submit that to satisfy the complainant's apprehension regarding the vehicle in question, his car was inspected at the workshop of OP-4 on 22.03.2014 at 3299kms for alleged demanded repairs of high smoke, engine leakage and bumper colour.

18. The air filter was clean, and no engine oil leakage was observed after the engine oil level was checked and found to be OK. No abnormality was observed regarding the performance of the complainant's vehicle, which was found to be defect-free. Since the complainant received the delivery of the carto his entire satisfaction after checks and service,it refutes the averments made by the complainant.

19. The complainant's car was again inspected in the workshop of OP-4 in Naraina on 08.04.2014 at 4306km when the vehicle was inspected by the expert engineer of the OP workshop who observed as under:

"Vehicle checked with SDT (Suzuki Diagnostic Tool) for black smoke & spot, all parameters found OK, engine compression check and found in 1^st Cylinder – 17.5kg/ cm², 2^ndCylinder – 17.5 kg/cm², 3^rd Cylinder – 18 kg/cm², 4^th Cylinder – 18 kg/cm². Intercoolerchecked and cleaned and air filter cleaned".

20. Since no defect was found,the vehicle was delivered after the complainant's satisfaction,falsifying the complainant's claim that the carhad a manufacturing defect. Further, the OPs state that the complainant's vehicle could not have plied for even 500km had the car been defective from the beginning.

21. As evident from the record, the complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop of OP-2 to obtain the 3^rd free inspection service on 16.09.2014 at 10391km, wherein after the periodic inspection and maintenance schedule was carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant, but the complainant refused to allow wheel alignment and balancing of the tyres. Hence, the allegations made by the complainant are mere conjectures, and the complainant has failed to place any material on record to support his case for the deficiency in service he claimed.

22. The complainant filedrejoinder,denying that he used adulterated fuel or that it was ever found in his vehicle as the same has not been mentioned in the job cards issued by the OPs themselves and since the OPs replacedthe Turbocharger Assembly and spare parts free of costit alluded to some defectwhich the OPs tried to rectify when the complainant took his car to OP-2 workshop.

23. The complainant also filed his affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments made in his complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of
    Sh. A. S. Sidhu, Territory Service Manager for OP-1, 3 & 4 who stated in his affidavit to be filed in evidence that the complainant's vehicle was sent to OP-2 for the first free inspection service on 25.11.2013, where it was inspected, and fuel was found adulterated due to which various assembly-components were cleaned. The fuel injector fuel return test was done, and the vehicle was kept under observation. Thus, the cause of the alleged problem was duly disclosed to the complainant by OP-2.Annexure-R-1/3is a copy of the job slip, job card and retail cash memo dated 25.11.2013. Further, Sh. A. S. Sidhu has echoed the statements made by the OPs in their reply.

24. Both parties filed their written arguments, and we have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the date fixed for final arguments. OP-2 is ex-parte;however, Ld. Counsel for OP-2 had appeared and filed written arguments, which were taken on record stating therein that OP-2 were not deficient in service as they attended to all the complainant's complaints,resolving the complainant's defects as and when received. OP-2 also claimed they had the vehicle checked by trained Maruti Suzuki engineers, who confirmed that the car was defect-free and working optimally. None appeared for OP-1, 3 and 4; hence,theywere given the liberty to address oral final arguments within 05 days,which the OPs did not avail of before the order was reserved.

25. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have perused the documents filed by the complainant and the contesting parties.

26. The complainant's case is that he purchased the Maruti Suzuki Ritz ZDi from OP-2 manufactured by OP-1. The complainant alleges that the car has some manufacturing defect due to which the vehicle in question emits black smoke and black spots on the bumper from the very 1^st day of purchase.

27. The complainant took his vehicle repeatedly for the same issue to OP-3 and OP-4 for service and repair of the defect. On28.11.2013, 03.12.2013, 04.12.2013 and 09.12.2013, 11.01.2014, OP-2 issued job cards towards the repairs conducted in his car, annexed with the complaint asAnnexureC-2, C-3 colly and  C-5 respectively. 

28. A bare perusal of the aforementioned job cards shows that the car was repeatedly checked for smoke emission issues. After purchasing the vehicle on 3.10.2013, the complainant took his car to OP-2, the service centre of OP-1, with a complaint of black smoke emission on 25.11.2013, i.e., within two months of purchase.

29. Further, it is mentioned in the job carddated 25.11. 2013, the air filter and intercooler were changed, and the car was kept under observation. On 03.12.2013, the Turbo Charger Assembly was replacedby OP-2, the service centre of OP-1, as admitted by them and noted in Annexure C-3 collyin the job card issued by OP-2. On 04.12.2013, the Turbo Charger Oil Drain Pipe Gas kit was adjusted, the Fuel Return line was checked, and on 09.12.2013, the "common rail diesel pipe" was tightened. On 18.12.2013,the car's battery was replaced, and on 11.01.2014, again, the complainant took the vehicle to the service centre, where the Air Filter was cleaned.

30. These repeated visits made by the complaint to get the issue of the emission of black smoke from his new car alludes to the same defect which the OP's, despite changing the Turbo Charger Assembly, cleaning the Fuel Drain Pipe,Air Filter & Intercooler, could not rectify.

31. The definition of "defect" as provided in the Act, in Section 2 (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is as follows:-

(f) "defect" means any fault imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or ¹²[under any contract, express or] implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

A plain reading of the above provision clarifies that a defect of any kind has to be given due attention by the OP and action taken to rectify the same.

32. The very fact that the OPs replaced the entire Turbo Assembly of the complainant's car points to the fact that the car undoubtedly suffered from some defect,which caused the OPs to replace the part.It cannot be denied that the complainant would have suffered substantial mental agony and harassment due to this defect and also becausethe car had to be repeatedly taken to the workshop of OP-1.

33. The OPs have alleged that the issue of the emission of black smoke and subsequent faults and defects occurred due to the complainant's use of adulterated fuel. In our view, this bald statement made by the OP is not substantiated by any test report, which the OPs could easily have done. Further, no mention of the usage of adulterated fuel is found in the job cards issued by the OPs themselves for reasons best known to them. Adulterated fuel cannot be ascertained by the naked eye. No convincing evidence is filed on record by the contesting parties to the effect that adulterated fuel was being used by the complainant in his vehicle, which resulted in the black smoke emission.

34. The OPs have mentioned conducting a fuel injector fuel return testas mentioned in Annexure R-1/3, which is the copy of the job card dated 25.11.2013 but have not filed any report to support this bald statement of the complainant using adulterated fuel in his car.Hence, in our view, this submission by the OPs is devoid of merit.

35. The OP also alleges that the complainant did not maintain his vehicle properly. This statementby the OPs is not supported by any documents or test reports by the OPs. The onus to prove that the carbeing brought to the OP-2 and 4 workshops repeatedly for testing and checking was defect-free lies with the OPs, who have utterly failed to place any material to this effect on record.

36. In our view, the complainant took his newly purchased car within 2 months and after that repeatedly to OP-2 service centre as clarified from the job sheets issued by OP-2, for the defect of emissionof black smoke and black spots on the bumper could not be rectified to the complainant's satisfaction.

37. However, the mere fact that the vehicle was taken to the service centreseveral times for rectification of defects which had developed therein doesnot meanthe car was suffering from a manufacturing defect. The job sheets do not in any way prove that the vehicle carried any other inherent defect. Further, since the complainant was driving his car and it ran for 4306 km as of08.04.2014, no case can be made out for replacement or refund of the car as had there been a manufacturing defect, it would not have been possible to run the vehicle for so many kilometres.

38. The complainant has also not sought any expert opinion to prove that his car had a manufacturing defect at any stage during the pendency of the case. Hence, in the absence of any such expert opinion, we feel the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in his vehicle.

39. In conclusion, we feel thatby not rectifying the defect in the complainant's vehicle, OPs were deficient in rendering the service as promised to the complainant when he purchased the car. Hence, we allow the complaint and direct them to repair the complainant's vehicle and replace all the defective parts to make it road-worthy without any charges to be incurred by him within two months of receipt of this order.

40. Alternatively, the OPs may pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same.The OPs shall also pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment he faced due to their inability to repair the complainant's new car and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 16.08.2024.