BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSALFORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint no.428/2018.
Date of Instt. 29.11.2018.
Date of Decision: 24.01.2020
Jyoti Rani wife of Sanjay Kumar, resident of Tibba Colony, Ratia, District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Maruti Suzuki India Limited Old Palam, Gurugaon Road, Gurugram through its General Manager.
- M/s Shakti Motors Authorized Maruti Suzuki Showroom GT Road, Fatehabad through its Proprietor.
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh. J.S. Bhatti, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the OP no. 1.
Sh. Sudhir Narang, Advocate for the OP no.2.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the OPs with the averments that she had purchased a Maruti Car Model Breeza ZDI on 14.2.2018 from OP no. 2. It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of the abovesaid car the OP no. 2 had assured that the vehicle in question is of a very good quality and the complainant will not face any problem in the said vehicle. It is further submitted that from the very beginning of the date of purchase of the car in question various defects in the car were notice i.e. in spite of closing of the window glasses the vehicle was giving wind cutting noise which was on account of a gap and similarly there was a gap in the dicky and it was also giving wind cutting noise and there were scratches also on the bonnet from the very beginning. Regarding the same a complaint was made by the complainant to OP no. 2 but to no avail. The complainant also got examined the vehicle in question from Ekons Motors Private Limited Kaithal on 6.6.2018 and Authorized Secretary of the abovesaid private limited submitted an inspection report with the observations that it is a manufacturing defect. In his inspection report the engineer has also submitted that windows of both sides of the vehicle in question are not working properly and there is a gap in the dicky and scratches on the vehicle. Till date the abovesaid defect could not be rectified and the complainant has also got inspected the vehicle in question from the authorized dealer/service station of the OP no. 1 and it has been admitted by the authorized dealer that the defect in the vehicle in question is a manufacturing defect. On account of the fact since the car in question is having a manufacturing defect as such the same cannot be repaired and in case of denting and painting of the new vehicle the price of the same will be reduced considerably. The complainant also got issued a legal notice to the Ops but all in vain.
2. It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. It has been further prayed that the present complaint may be allowed and the OPs may be directed for replacement of the vehicle in question with a new car alongwith compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On being served, OP no. 1 appeared through its counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. have been raised.
4. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of OP no. 2 on 6.6.2018 and scratches on the bonnet and problem of operation of door as hard was reported by the complainant. Before this visit no problem of any kind was reported by the complainant to authorized work shop of OP no. 1. The vehicle was inspected and repairs which were to be carried out on free of cost basis under warranty were communicated to the complainant. However, the complainant did not give the approval for carrying out the necessary repairs. The complainant refused to get repairs for the reasons best known to him and took the vehicle away from the workshop.
5. It is further submitted that thereafter home visit was made by Shakti Motors Private Limited on 10.6.2018 to carry out the repairs for the alleged problem of the doors. However, the complainant again did not allow the personnel from the workshop to get the damage in the vehicle repaired. Thereafter, the vehicle was sent to the workshop of Shakti Motors Private Limited Fatehabad on 9.7.2018 and problem of closing of door hard, wind cutting noise, gap in rear door and noise from door glass was reported. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that necessary repairs were to be carried out on free of cost basis under warranty and the same was also communicated to the complainant. The complainant again refused for the repairs for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the alleged problem if any exists due to negative attitude of the complainant and the same is not due to any fault on the part of answering OP. It is further submitted that the vehicle had already plied 11474 Kms within a period of 5 months and after the visit on 9.7.2018 and no problem of any kind was reported by the complainant. From the same, it is evident that the vehicle is having no problem. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect and the allegations levelled by the complainant are false and hence denied. The complainant has concocted a false story to obtain undue gains from the answering OP. It is also submitted that the answering OP never refused to perform its warranty obligations and even is ready on date to rectify the defect in the vehicle if any subject to the condition that the complainant allows for the same. The vehicle is in the warranty period and the OPs be allowed to check and repair the vehicle.
6. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of answering OP in rendering service to the complainant and the present complaint is without any merits and liable to be dismissed.
7. On being served, OP no. 2 also resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to abuse of process of law, cause of action, maintainability, estoppel, locus standi and concealment of true and correct facts etc. have been raised.
8. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the complainant visited to OP no. 2 on 30.3.2018 for the first time for getting first free service and the same was done by OP no. 2 and at that time no such complaint was raised by the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant visited OP no. 2 on 25.5.2018 for the second time and on the same day a job card was issued and second free service was done by OP no. 2. Thereafter, the complainant visited to OP no. 2 on 6.6.2018 and asked to repair scratches on the bonnet of the vehicle and also made a complaint regarding hard operation of the door and all these complaints were removed on 6.6.2018. Thereafter, on 10.6.2018, the vehicle in question was brought by the complainant for free check up and the same was done. Thereafter, on 9.7.2018 the free check up of the vehicle of the complainant was done by OP no. 2 and thereafter on 8.8.2018 free service of the vehicle was done by OP no. 2 and on 7.12.2018 the complainant got done free service. Thereafter, on 13.12.2018 the complainant visited OP no. 2 for the complaint of a cut in the tyre and for getting free winter health check up and the vehicle of the complainant was checked and tyre of the vehicle were replaced. Thereafter, the complainant is pressurizing OP no. 2 to replace the vehicle on false excuses. It is further submitted that the OP no. 2 has no authority to change the vehicle and the complainant is using his vehicle properly and there is no complaint of any kind in the vehicle in question. There is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is without any merits ad liable to be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Exhibit CW1/A and the documents as Annexure C2 to Annexure C8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sidharth Sharma as Annexure RW1/A and the documents Annexure R1/1 and Annexure R1/2 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP no. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shakti Singh Manager as Annexure RW2/A and the documents as Annexure R-3 to Annexure R-12.
10. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a new Maruti car Model Brezza, ZDI on 14.02.2018 from OP No. 2 and OP No. 1 is the manufacturer of the above said vehicle. It is further the case of the complainant that at the time of purchase of the above said vehicle OP No. 2 had assured that the complainant will not face any problem in the said vehicle. It is further the case of the complainant that in the very beginning from the date of purchase of the car in question the defects were noticed that in spite of closing of window glasses the vehicle was giving wind cutting noise which was on account of gap and similarly there was a gap in the dickey of the car and it was also giving the wind cutting noise. The scratches on the bonnet of the vehicle in question were also noticed in the very beginning. It is further the case of the complainant that she got the vehicle examined from Ekansh Motor Private Limited Ambala Road Kaithal who is Maruti Authorised dealer of OP No. 1. After inspection the engineer of the Ekansh Motor Private Limited found the same fault in the vehicle in question as described by the complainant. The complainant also got inspected vehicle in question from the authorized dealer/service centre of OP No. 1 and it was also admitted by the authorized dealer that the defect in vehicle in question is a manufacturing defect and the same cannot be repaired. It is also the case of the complainant that in case of denting and painting in the new vehicle the price of the same will be reduced considerably. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the vehicle in question with a new vehicle of the same model and price.
11. On the other hand, it is the case of the OP No. 1 that for the first time the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of the OP No. 2 on 06.06.2018 and scratches on the bonnet and the door hard to operate was reported by the complainant. Before 06.06.2018 no problem of any kind was reported by the complainant. It is further the case of the OP No. 1 that the vehicle was inspected and repairs was to be carried out on the free of cost basis under warranty and the same was intimated to the complainant. However the complainant did not give approval for carrying out the necessary repairs and refused to get the vehicle in question repaired. It is further the case of the OP No. 1 that on 10.06.2018 home visit was made by Shakti Motors Private Limited to carry out the repairs for the alleged problems in the vehicle. However the complainant did not allow the personnel from the workshop to get the damage in the vehicle repaired. Thereafter, the vehicle was sent to the workshop of Shakti Motors on 09.07.2018 and the problem of closing of the door hard, wind cutting noise, gap in rear door and noise from door glass was reported. However the complainant again refused for the repairs for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops in rendering service to the complainant.
12. It is the case of the OP No. 2 that the complainant visited the workshop of OP No. 2 for the first time on 30.03.2018 for getting the first service and the same was done by OP No. 2. However at that time no such complaint was raised by the complainant in this regard as alleged in the complaint. Thereafter the complainant again visited on 25.05.2018 for second service and the second service was done and a job card was issued. Thereafter on 06.06.2018, the complainant visited the workshop for repair of the scratches on the bonnet and also made complaint regarding operation of doors and all the complaints were removed on 06.06.2018. Thereafter the complaint visited on 10.06.2018 for free checkup and the same was done. Thereafter free checkup of the vehicle was done on 09.07.2018, 08.08.2018 and 07.12.2018. Thereafter on 13.12.2018, the complainant visited OP No. 2 for the complaint of cut in the tyre and for getting free winter health checkup camp and the vehicle of the complainant was checked and tyre of the vehicle in question were replaced. However, thereafter complainant is pressurizing for replacement of vehicle in question on false excuses. Moreover, the OP No. 2 has no authority to change the vehicle whereas the vehicle is being used by the complainant properly without any complaint in the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency on part of OP No. 2 in rendering service to the complainant.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not disputed that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No. 2 on 14.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.9,94,964/-. It is also not disputed that OP No. 1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question. From perusal of Annexure C-5 i.e. Job Card dated 06.06.2018, it is evident that the vehicle in question was taken by the complainant with Eakansh Motor Private Limited Kaithal who is Maruti Authorized Dealer for repair of defect i.e. wind cutting noise, side door not operating proper, gap in rear dickey. From perusal of Annexure C-5, it is also evident that after inspection the engineer of the authorized service centre has agreed with the above said defects in the vehicle in question. Vide the above said report the engineer has also observed that there were scratches on front hood. The above said defects in the vehicle in question has also observed by OP No. 2 vide job card dated 09.07.2018 AnnexureC-2. The Ops in their written statements have also admitted the above said defects in the car in question and have also agreed to repair the same free of cost.
14. The vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 14.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.9,94,964/-. The defects in the vehicle in question were noticed in the very beginning, therefore keeping in view this fact and the nature of the defects in the vehicle in question we are of the considered view that it is a case of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Since the brand new vehicle was purchased by the complainant and as such we agree with the contention of the complainant that in case denting & painting will be done in the vehicle in that eventuality its price will be reduced considerably. The complainant have been deprived of the charm of new vehicle Therefore, it will not be appropriate to direct the Ops for repair of the faults in the car in question. It will be in the fitness of the things to direct the Ops to replace the vehicle in question.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP No. 1 being manufacturer of the vehicle in question in rendering service to her. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the OP No. 1 is directed for replacement of the vehicle in question with a new car of the same brand. The complainant is also directed to handover the vehicle in question to the OP No. 1 along with the requisite documents. The OP No. 1 is directed for making compliance of the present order within 2 months from the date of receiving of the copy of this order.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt. 24.01.2020
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh) Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
