BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

04^th DAY OF JUNE 2020

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to refund of total cost of the vehicle and personal damages in all totaling to Rs.20,00,000/-.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

Complainant purchased Maruthi VITRA BREZZA VDI on 17.04.2018 vide registration number KA-41-MB-6029 by paying an amount of Rs.9,91,000/- with OP-2.  Complainant submitted that after the first service of 2500 kilometres there was no issue.  On 28.05.2018 complainant had noticed an oil leakage in the engine.  Hence complainant called the customer care service.  Maruthi Customer Service Advisor advised the complainant to take the vehicle to the nearest service centre for investigation.  On 28.05.2018 complainant took the vehicle to MANDOVI MOTORS, Bangalore for the investigation.  It was alleged that after thorough inspection of 3 hours Mandovi Motors Manager informed the complainant that there is a major issue in the engine.  They also informed that engine oil leakage from crank shaft oil seal.  The service manager advised the complainant to take the vehicle where the vehicle was purchased for replacement of the vehicle.

Complainant further submitted that on 29.06.2018 complainant took the vehicle to OP-2.  It was alleged that the OP-2 inspected and gave a false report mentioning that oil leakage is from the transmission side.  Hence complainant called the Regional Officer Pushparaj.M about the issue.  So the said officer advised the complainant to leave the vehicle at Kalyani Motors/OP-3 for investigation and repair.

Complainant further submitted that on 29.05.2018 complainant took the vehicle to OP-3 service centre for investigation and repair.  The service manager promised the complainant to rectify the problem if any and also assured that if the issue repeats they will recommend for replacement of the vehicle.  OP-3 service manager noticed that oil seal of crankshaft seal got damaged.  Manager advised to mechanic to replace the crank shaft seal and replacement of engine oil and gear box oil.  OP-3 also assured that there will no further oil leakage from the engine.

Complainant further submitted that on 20.06.2018 complainant again noticed that oil leakage in the engine.  Hence on 21.06.2018 complainant took the vehicle to OP-3 service centre.  OP-3 service centre mechanic once again dismantled the engine for further investigation and repaired and they confirmed that engine oil leakage was from the same area where the problem was attended earlier.  The complainant alleged that as per the assurance made by Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Officer Pushparaj M about the replacement of the vehicle, OPs neglected and did not respond to the commitment of replacing the vehicle.  Hence complainant approached this Forum for refund of the amount along with damages.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP-1 appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief, as under:

OP-1 submitted that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such.  The present claim raised by the complainant is not maintainable as against OP-1 in any manner.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, neglect or default on the part of OPs of any nature.  OP-1 is only responsible for providing warranty service during the warranty period of two years form the date of sale.  The said warranty was subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in the Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet.  The terms and conditions of warranty are integral part of sale contract and the complainant is bound by them.  The complainant was provided the warranty services as the terms and conditions and failed to place any material on record in support of his case for alleged deficiency in service.  OP-1 has discharged their obligations as agreed at the time of sale and the complainant has no case under the act.

OP-1 further submitted that the complainant was repeatedly escalating the matter with OP-1 even after filing the instant complaint.  He was time and again referring that he is tired of pursuing the matter in court and hence wants to settle the same amicably.  OP-1 requested the complainant to bring his vehicle for a joint inspection in presence of OPs representatives at the MSIL Authorized Workshop.  Accordingly the vehicle in question was brought by the complainant to the workshop on 17.08.2018.  That after a detailed inspection of the vehicle some issue with the gallery plug of the vehicle was observed, which was a minor issue and could have been attended to on the same day itself.  However, the complainant did not give approval to change the same under warranty and started demanding a new vehicle.  That the gallery plug of the vehicle costs less than Rs.500/- but the complainant did not gave approval for the same to be replaced even free of cost.

OP-1 further submitted that in order to keep the esteemed customer happy, as a goodwill gesture and also to control the situation the representatives of OP-1 agreed to replace the full engine assembly but not the vehicle.  The complainant too agreed for the same and wrote a note stating that he shall withdraw the case if the engine assembly is changed free of cost.  Infact the job card with these nothing was signed by MSIL representatives and the complainant.  Further since while inspecting the vehicle, it was observed that the complainant had got a non Maruti genuine Accessory (MGA) installed as the reverse parking sensor camera, a note about the same was mentioned on the job card as a standard procedure.  That on seeing the note about the non MGA fitment in the job card, the complainant got anxious and started misbehaving with the officials of the OP-1 as well as the dealer.  He asked the officials of the OP-1 to cancel the note he had written.  The said job card was accordingly cancelled.  That the complainant did not stop at this, he parked his car at the entrance of the workshop and kept abusing the staff of the workshop and kept threatening the officials of the OP-1 with dire consequences.  All this has been captured on the CCTV footage and can be produced if the Forum so directs.  That since the situation was getting out of hand, the workshop officials called police who got the car of the complainant removed from the entrance.

OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has concealed the material fact as per his convenience.  Admittedly the complainant bought the vehicle in question with warranty for a period of 2 year or 40000 Km from the date of delivery.  The warranty was subject to certain terms and conditions and limitation as set out under the service booklet supplied to the complainant at the time of sale.  As per terms and conditions, the complainant would require to bring the vehicle in question to the workshop of any authorized dealer for obtaining routine maintenance services.  But, as is evident from the vehicle history, the complainant was negligent in obtaining routine maintenance services at recommended mileage.  In fact, the vehicle in question was in extensive use of the complainant and completed a huge mileage in a short span and hence needed proper and timely maintenance as recommended.  Further the vehicle in question has been fitted with a non MGA fitment which voids the warranty at the outset.

OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has made false and vague averments with ulterior motive to mislead this Forum.  As is evident from vehicle history, the complainant had sought routine maintenance service which was done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  That some of the contents relates to OP.2 & 3 and it is for them to reply as the answering OP was not privy to the said transaction.

OP-1 further submitted that the complainant is required to send the vehicle in question to the workshop of OP-2/3 for routine maintenance at a recommended mileage/time.  The OP-2/3 carried out the routine maintenance services to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and handed over the vehicle to the complainant.  Similarly the complainant has to bring the complete vehicle at the workshop of authorized dealer to obtain warranty service as per clause 6 of service booklet.  The minor leakage of oil from any running component during the ordinary course is nothing to worry but need repair under warranty which was never denied to the complainant.

OP-1 denied that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect.  All the vehicles manufactured by OP-1 undergo stringent quality control test at various spot before declaring FCOK (Final check OK) and dispatch to dealer for onward sale to individual customer.  The vehicle in question had also passed through the specify test and inspection and was declared FCOK and is in perfect road worthy conditions.  The car in question was driven negligently without caring necessary caution.  The OPs are not liable to rectify any defect which are not covered under warranty including those are covered under clause 4 of booklet.  There is no pith and substances in the allegation made.  OP-1 has undertaken to provide the warranty benefits within the warranty period and repair/replace any component shown to be defective if the company acknowledge such defect is attributable to faulty material or poor workmanship at the time of manufacturing of vehicle as per clause 3.

OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has no cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under the Act.  The present complaint is without cause of action.  Complainant is bound by the express terms and conditions of warranty.  OPs duly discharged their warranty obligations and the complainant has no case either for compensation or damages under the Act.  The complainant with malafide intentions to make unjust gains and to mislead this Forum has made the vague allegations.  The present complaint is not maintainable against OP-1.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Hence OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. In response to the notice issued, OP-2 appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief, as under:

OP-2 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and on this ground alone the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed in limine.  Complainant purchased Maruthi VITRA BREZZA VC vehicle on 17.04.2018.  The vehicle is registered with the jurisdictional RTO office bearing No.KA-41-MB-6029.

OP-2 further submitted that it is not within the knowledge of OP-2 about the 1^st service and with whom the vehicle was service.  That on 28.05.2018 the complainant noticed Engine Oil Leakage below the Engine and that the complainant contacted the customer care MARUTI service centre regarding the issue and that the complainant was advised to take the vehicle to nearest and authorized service station for investigation.

OP-2 further submitted that, it is not within the knowledge of OP-2 that the complainant on 28.05.2018 took the vehicle to MandoviMotors, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru for investigation and after thorough investigation, the Mandovi service manager said that there is major issue in engine side and confirmed that the engine oil leakage is from crankashaft oil seal and that the complainant has advised to drop the vehicle where the complainant purchase the vehicle for further inspection and repair of the same is not in the knowledge of OP-2 and the said allegation is completely denied.

OP-2 further submitted that the complainant on 29.06.2018 came to OP-2 workshop near Mysore Sandal Factory backside gate, Rajajinagar, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru and that the OP-2 service manager inspected and gave a false report stating oil leakage is from transmission side is totally false and baseless as the complainant was not willing to get the vehicle inspected to OP-2 service technicians.  The job card issued by the OP-2 for the vehicle clearly goes to show that check in date of time and check in date of time and check out date and time was hardly 30 minutes and it clearly goes to show that the complainant did not co-operate with the OP-2 technical staff for thorough inspection of the vehicle, rather the complainant was insisting on replacement of new vehicle, which is remotely not possible since the vehicle is under warranty period.  Thereof, if at all any defects are notice or identified only to that extent the parts can be replaced or changed.  OP-2 submits that in the instant case the complainant never co-operated with the OP-2 for the inspection of the vehicle to identify as to what is the defect and reasons of the oil leakage as the contended by the complainant.

OP-2 further submitted that the complaint falsely contended that the OP-2 service manager was not co-operating with the issue is totally false and baseless as the complainant who brought the vehicle for inspection never co-operated OP-2 technical staff for thorough inspection and investigation of the vehicle rather the complainant was insisting for replacement of the vehicle, it is the complainant who was not co-operating the OP-2 for thorough inspection and investigation on the vehicle and now the complainant with ulterior motive is falsely alleging that OP-2 service manager was not co-operating with the complainant, furthermore the job card of the OP-2 with regard to said vehicle is self explanatory as the vehicle was in work station for approximately 30 minutes and the said duration is insufficient to investigate and apprise complainant.

OP-2 further submitted that the complainant refused to give sufficient time and reasonable opportunity to the OP-2 for thorough the investigation, inspection of the vehicle, rather the complainant with ulterior motive malicious intention to damage the reputation and name of OP-2 in the market escalated the issue with the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., regional office, which was unwarranted as at no point of time the OP-2 has ever declined or failed to co-operate with the complainant to conduct investigation and carry out repairs works on the said vehicle.

OP-2 further submitted that it was the complainant who failed to co-ordinate with technical staff of OP-2 and with ulterior motive, malicious intentions approached the regional officer Sri.Pushparaj about the issue and that the said office advised the complainant to approach Kalyani Motors is not within knowledge of OP-2.  The complainant has contended on 29.05.2018 M/s.Kalyani Motors Service Manager advised the complainant to leave the vehicle for investigation and repair, furthermore the service manager Mr.Sunkol promised the complainant to rectify the problem and same will not arise in future is not within the knowledge of OP-2.  Complainant has contended that the said M/s.Kalyani Motors service manager assured that if the issue repeats he would recommend for a vehicle replacement on this condition the complainant accepted for investigation and repair is totally false, baseless and concocted.  That since the vehicle was under warranty period the defective components could be replaced and changed but for defect of any single component the question of replacement of the entire vehicle is not warranted.  M/s.Kalyani Motors service manager noticed oil seal of crankshaft seal got damaged is not within the knowledge of the OP-2.  Furthermore the manager advised to mechanic to replace the crankshaft seal and replacement of engine oil, gear box oil.

OP-2 further submitted that M/s.Kalyani service manager assured that there will be no further oil from the engine side and that M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., regional office Pushparaj.M assured the complainant that if warranted, he will recommend for replacement of vehicle to M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., is totally false and baseless as the vehicle is under warranty period and only the damaged or worn-out component can be replaced and not entire vehicle as falsely contended by the complainant in the complaint.  OP-2 further submitted that it is not within the knowledge of the OP-2 that on 20.06.2018 the complainant noticed the engine oil leakage from the area in same spot and called the M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., regional officer Pushparaj.M fixed an appointment once again for the second time is not within the knowledge of the OP-2.

OP-2 further submitted that on 21.06.2018 M/s.Kalyani Motor’s mechanic inspected and sent photos to the service team of M/s.Kalyani Motors and to regional officer Pushparaj M and the complainant took the vehicle to M/s.Kalyani Motor for inspection is not within the knowledge of the OP-2 and denies the same.  The complainant found engine oil dropping from the same previous attended area and that M/s.Kalyani Service Manager said to drop the vehicle once again the dismantle engine for further investigation and repair is not within the knowledge of OP-2.  That since the vehicle is under warranty period only the replacement of defective component and not the replacement of the entire vehicle as false contended or claimed by the complainant.

OP-2 further submitted that it is not within the knowledge of OP-2 that the complainant is carrying 5w40 Engine 4ltr container in his car so that whenever the engine oil get below the level is topping the engine oil on daily basis of 100 to 2015 ml.  That at the time of preliminary investigation on 28.05.2018 the OP No.2 technical staff had clearly advised the complainant till thorough investigation is completed and defects are rectified the complainant was advised not to drive the vehicle, rather the complainant by his own version has started to topping up oil and is driving the vehicle, which is against the norms laid down and all future consequential damages to the side vehicle the complainant himself solely responsible and liable for the same wherein the complainant will be forfeited of the benefits of warrantee period.

OP-2 further submitted that complainant himself failed to co-operate in permitting to examine the vehicle the complainant claiming astronomical compensation is liable to be dismissed.  Furthermore the OP-2 further submitted that there is no deficiency of service as the complainant has failed to submit his vehicle for thorough investigation and examination and hence the question of provision of this law is not applicable.  Hence OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

5. In response to the notice issued, OP-3 appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief, as under:

OP-3 submitted that the complaint against OP-3 is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The entire allegation in the complaint against OP-3 is without any basis.  Complaint regarding purchase of Maruthi Vitra Breezza VDI on 17.04.2018 vide registration No.KA-41-MB-6029 by paying an amount of Rs.9,91,000/- from Varun Motor Pvt Ltd., Malleshwaram, Bengaluru is not within the knowledge of OP-3 and this OP is not concerned.  That the report given by the service manager of OP-2 company is also not within the knowledge of OP-3.

OP-3 further submitted that the dropping of oil from the Engine Housing and further contacting the Service Manager and Regional Manager/Officer of OP-2 and upsetting over the same and the Regional Office directing to go to OP-3 is also not within the knowledge of this OP.  That on 29.05.2018 approaching OP-3 and OP-3 assured to rectify and if the issue repeats he recommends for replacement on that condition accepted the investigation and repair done by this OP.  OP-3 advised mechanic to replace the crank shaft seal and replacement of engine oil is a process under repair when the vehicle was brought to this OP and OP-3 has attended the work with utmost care and caution and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-3.  The claim made against OP-3 is totally incorrect and with a malafide intention and there is no deficiency to be made good by this OP-3 and the complaint against OP-3 is totally misleading.

OP-3 further submitted that in the complaint against Maruthi Suzuki and alleging various aspects against the said company is no way concerned with OP-3.  OP-3 is not concerned with the claim made in the complaint and not liable to pay any compensation much less the compensation sought for in the complaint.  That except once attending the vehicle of the complainant on complaint with a leakage of oil which has been attended as per job card and there is no deficiency by this OP to be compensated as claimed in the complaint.  That the alleged claim of Rs.20,00,000/- personal damage and replacement of the vehicle is not concerned with OP-3 as OP-3 is not the person who has delivered the vehicle nor received any money and further OP-1 which is a company against whom claim is made has to be proved and obtained.  Rest of the allegations made by the complainant is denied by OP-3.  Hence OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

6. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Complainant has produced certain documents.  Complainant and OPs have produced written arguments.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OPs and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

7. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

2.  What order?

8. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Negative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

REASONS

9. Point No.1:-It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased Maruthi VITARA BREZZA VDI on 17.04.2018 vide registration No.KA-41-MB-6029 by paying an amount of Rs.9,91,000/- from OP-2 as per Ex-A1. 

10. Complainant alleged that after running 2500 kms complainant noticed oil leakage in the engine.  On 28.05.2018 complainant took the vehicle to Mandovi Motors, Bangalore for investigation.  After thorough investigation of 3 hours Mandovi Motors Manager informed the complainant that there is a major issue in the engine and advised the complainant to take the vehicle to OP-2 for replacement of the vehicle.  To substantiate his contention complainant has not produced documentary evidence.  Hence the contention of the complainant cannot be accepted. 

11. Further on perusal of the Ex-A7 documents produced by the complainant it proves that complainant approached the OP-2 for oil leakage for the first time on 28.05.2018.  Further in the recommendation column it mentioned here as under:

Recommendations:

OIL LEAKAGE OBSERVED NEAR GEARBOX CUSTOMER NOT GIVEN APPROVAL FOR INVESTIGATION THE PROBLEM AND HE TAKEN BACK THE VEHICLE …..xxx….xx…..  

12. The above said document it clearly shows that the complainant has not given sufficient time for the OP-2 to rectify the mistakes.  As per Ex-A8 on 29.05.2018 complainant took the vehicle for repairs with the OP-3.  The OP-3 investigated and rectified the problem.  The case of the complainant is that OP-3 service centre assured that if the same problem arises they will recommend for replacement of the vehicle.  The complainant alleges that after running 400 kms again oil leakage started in the engine on the same spot.  The complainant approached OPs for replacement of the vehicle.  The OPs have not replaced the vehicle nor they rectified the problem.

13. On perusal of the e-mail correspondence with the OPs from Ex-A10 to Ex-A22 it shows that the complainant approached the OP-1 for replacement of the vehicle.  The OP-1 asked the complainant to leave vehicle for investigation by MSIL technical team.  But the complainant has not left the vehicle for investigation with the OP-1 and filed this complaint alleging manufacturing defect and sought for replacement of the vehicle.  However as per Ex-A16 it proves that the complainant left the vehicle for investigation with the OP-1 on 23.09.2018 i.e., after filing of this complaint.  The OP-1 technical team investigated the issue and they noticed that there is oil leakage in the engine and also suggests for repair of oil leakage.  Complainant has not given approval for the same after investigation of the MSIL. 

14. On behalf of OP-1 Sri.Srinivasan C.S working for gains for Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., in his affidavit evidence submitted that MSIL technical team investigated the problem.  As per the MSIL technical team opinion that the said problem is a minor problem and it is curable problem and it can be rectified by replacing gallery plug of the vehicle which costs less than Rs.500/- but the complainant has not given approval for the same to be replace even free of cost.  To rebut the evidence of the OP No.1 the complainant has not produced any second opinion or expert opinion with regard to the manufacturing defect.  Hence it is proper to accept the contention of OP-1 that there is a minor problem in the engine and it can be rectified by replacing a gallery plug of the vehicle.  Further OP-1 in para-6 of his version submitted that “OP agreed to replace the full engine assembly with free of cost”.  But the complainant has not agreed to replace the engine assembly.

15. On the above said facts it clearly shows that the OPs have attended the work with utmost care and caution and they are ready to provide a service by free of cost to the complainant.  But the complainant has not given for approval for repair a vehicle for free of cost.  Hence on the above facts, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Accordingly we answer the point No.1 in the negative.

16. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:          

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 04^th day of June 2020)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.Nagaraju H.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP-1 by way of affidavit:

Sri.Srinivasan C.S.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP-2 by way of affidavit:

Sri.SandeepBekal, Who being working as Chief General Manager of OP-2 company.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP-3 by way of affidavit:

Sankol, who being the manager of OP-3.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s - Nil

Vln*