DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 258 of 05-06-2012
Decided on 18-10-2012
Mandip Singh aged about 44 years s/o Mohinder Singh r/o 20087 A Street No.3A, Jujhar Singh Nagar, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its MD/Chairman/GM/President/CMD.
2.Tara Automobiles, Bathinda opposite ITI Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its CMD/MD/GM/Chairman/Partner.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Amanpal Singh, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased Swift VDI car on 16.3.2009. The warranty was given upto 28.8.2010 and the extended warranty was given upto 60000 kms or for 3 years. The said car met with an accident in the month of May 2009 and the same was handed over to the opposite party No.2 for the repair vide job card No.JCO9000813 on 6.5.2009. The opposite party No.2 has charged Rs.32,422/-. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties have charged the bill for repairing the horn assembly. The complainant again purchased the extended warranty which was valid upto 14.3.2013 or upto 80,000 kms. The horn of the said car became defective and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 2.4.2012 but it refused to repair the said car that the horn is repaired one due to accident so it cannot be repaired and detained the said car and tried to get his signature on the blank job card without telling anything. The complainant requested the opposite parties to repair the horn assembly as it was under warranty and previously repaired by the opposite party No.2 on 6.5.2009 and in routine the opposite party No.2 used to retain the vehicle for repair in the absence of customer. The said car was repaired in the absence of the complainant and he is not a technical man and the opposite party No.2 never allowed the customer to be present at the time of repair. The opposite parties detained the car forcibly and had given the note on the bill dated 2.4.2012. Thereafter, the complainant has sent an e-mail to the opposite party No.2 who in turn sent a letter on 17.4.2012 and made a false allegation regarding damaged/defective horn due to accident by making lame excuses. The complainant has approached the opposite party No.1 to direct the opposite party No.2 to set right the said vehicle without any charge but they did not pay any heed to his request. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions to the opposite parties to change the horn assembly and repair the said car immediately without getting any charges alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant is not the consumer as he neither entered into any contract for the sale of goods or received any consideration nor hired any service for consideration. There is no privity of the contract with the complainant qua the opposite party No.1. The relationship between the opposite party No.1 with the opposite party No.2 is that of Principal to Principal basis. The complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite party No.1 is engaged in manufacturing of large number of vehicle of Maruti Suzuki make, in India for more than 25 years. The vehicle was manufactured by them delivered to their dealers under the Dealership Agreement. The extended warranty does not give privilege to get the damaged spare parts or serviced the same free of charge as alleged by the complainant. The warranty terms are the part of the contract and are binding on both the opposite parties. The primary/standard warranty is for a period of 24 months or 40,000/- kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner and extended further on payment of additional premium for 4th year or upto 80,000 kms from the date of the sale of new car, whichever is earlier, after the expiry of the primary warranty of 2 years/40,000 kms. The accident/external hit does not cover under the warranty and the complainant paid the consideration to get the horn assembly repaired. The complainant reported the horn check upon which the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer and found one horn repaired from the outside and one horn was damaged due to external hit/accident.
3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant had approached them with a complaint regarding the defect in the said horn. As per the terms of the extended warranty, the said horn which had already been got repaired as the same was damaged in an accident, as such the same is not covered under the extended warranty and the opposite party No.2 has refused to provide the service to the horn in question free of cost and under warranty but however they are ready to provide the requisite paid service to the complainant. But the complainant instead of agreeing to pay the amount for the repair of the said horn, opted to file the present complaint. The opposite party No.2 denied that it had ever retained or detained the car or tried to get the signature of the complainant on the job card without telling anything. The opposite party No.2 admitted the issuance of the letter dated 17.4.2012 to the complainant.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the Swift VDI car on 16.3.2009 and the warranty was given upto 28.8.2010 for 24 months or 40,000 kms. The complainant has got extended warranty upto 60,000 kms or for 3 years. The complainant again got extended warranty upto 14.3.2013 or upto 80,000 kms. The said car met with an accident in the month of May 2009. The opposite party No.2 has set right the said car vide job card No.JCO9000813 on 6.5.2009. The opposite party No.2 has received Rs.32,422/-. The letter dated 17.4.2012 is also admitted by the opposite parties.
7. The disputed facts between the parties are that the said horn became defective and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 2.4.2012 and after check up they refused to repair the said car and told him that the horn is repaired one due to accident so it cannot be repaired and detained the said car and tried to get his signature on the blank job card without telling anything. The complainant has sent an e-mail to the opposite party No.2 who in turn sent a letter on 17.4.2012 and told that the damage/defect occurred in the horn due to the accident that cannot be repaired free of cost.
8. The said car met with an accident and got repaired in May 2009 vide job card No.JCO9000813 on 6.5.2009. At this time the said horn assembly was repaired. The complainant has specifically alleged in para No.6 of his complaint that the opposite parties also charged the bill amount for repairing the horn assembly.
9. The opposite parties submitted that the problem in the said horn was occurred due to accident/external hit which was not covered under the warranty or extended warranty. The complainant has to pay the consideration for the repair of the horn. The opposite party No.2 also submitted to the extent that if the complainant will pay the charges for the repair of the said horn, they are still ready to repair or replace the said horn after charging the consideration.
10. A perusal of job card dated 2.4.2012 Ex.R2 shows that the complainant has brought his vehicle for checking its horn. At the overleaf of Ex.R2 it has been mentioned in remarks:-
“Horn assy defective right & left side. Hit from front side of the vehicle one horn repair from outside & one side horn damage due to external hit. Thus is not covered under extended warranty due to vehicle accident & horn damage.”
These facts have been duly mentioned in bill dated 2.4.2012 vide Ex.R3:-
“Recommendations:- Stereo non MGA make JVC, centre locking non MGA, horn Assy defective right & left side. Hit from front side of the vehicle one horn repair from outside & one side horn damage due to external hit. This is not covered under extended warranty due to vehicle accident & horn damage.”
At page No.2 of 7 of Ex.R4 extended warranty booklet in Warranty Condition & Coverage, it has been mentioned in list of components not covered that
“(i)Any repair or replacement required as a result of accident or collision.......
Limitation:-
(d)The vehicle must not have been fitted with any parts or accessories not approved by Maruti.”
Sh.Tanuj Gupta has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R5 in para No.5 that:-
“........the cause of problem in horn was attributed to accident/external hit hence was not covered under warranty and admittedly the complainant paid the consideration to get the alleged horn assembly replaced on normal terms. I submit that the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No.2 for obtaining running repairs on 2.4.2012 at 66,249 kms. The complainant reported horn check upon which the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer and found one horn repaired from outside and one horn was damaged due to external hit/accident. Since due to grave violation of extended warranty terms, the said replacement is not covered under the ambit of extended warranty and shall be carried out on normal terms/paid basis. The said remarks were also marked on the job card and the complainant without getting the same replaced on normal terms took the delivery of vehicle. The complainant insisted for replacement of horn assembly under extended warranty free of charge.......”
11. From the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file, it is concluded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as it is proved on file that the opposite parties have refused to replace the said horn as the damage was caused to the said horn due to the external hit/accident. Thus it is not covered under the warranty or extended. However, the opposite parties are ready to repair the said horn if the complainant will pay the consideration for the same.
12. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-` (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
18-10-2012 President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
