Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/360/2021

Mohd. Aaris - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dr. Sumati Jund

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/360/2021
Date of Institution	:	28/05/2021
Date of Decision	:	18/01/2024

 

Mohd. Aaris, S/o Sh.Yakub Khan, Aged about 30 years, Permanent R/o VPO Uttawar, Tehsil Hathil, District Palwal, Haryana, Presently R/o Police Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO-39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
2. Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.112-113, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Dr.Sumati Jund, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Anshul Kukreja, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased a new car make Maruti, manufactured by Respondent No.1 in 02/2018, from its authorized dealer, Respondent No.2 on 13.03.2018 (Annexure C-1). The complainant properly maintained it and regularly sent it for servicing at authorized service centre of Respondent No.1 company. However, despite the above said upkeep, the complainant witnessed unusual corrosion/rusting on the various parts of the car's body/shell in the month of May, 2020 i.e., after around 2 years and 3 months of purchasing the said vehicle, having covered distance of around 85,000 Kms. Notably, when it was observed by the complainant that the corrosion was rapidly increasing and spreading to the other parts of the car's body/shell thereby, severely deteriorating the same, the complainant reported regarding the said rusting/corrosion to the then service managers of Respondent No.2. Thereafter, on 16th June, 2020, the complainant sent his above said vehicle to the authorized workshop of Respondent No.2, dealer for inspecting the above said unusual defect as keeping in view the service life of the vehicle, the said corrosion was certainly not normal. After the said inspection, the complainant kept on requesting the officials of Respondent No.2, dealer to rectify the said defect or replace his vehicle owing to manufacturing defect in the same, however, the said officials kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or another. After receiving the e-mail, Annexure C-3, the complainant again got inspected the said car from various expert vehicle mechanics who are running their workshops at Motor Markets of Chandigarh from the last many years. Notably, all the said mechanics observed that the said rusting/corrosion is due to manufacturing defect in the same (Annexure C-4). After said inspection, the complainant again requested the territory service manager of Respondent No.2, dealer to get the body panels replaced at the earliest but to no avail. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.04.2021 to the Respondents (Annexure C-8). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that warranty expired much before 30.12.2019. The warranty on the vehicle was for 2 years or till 40,000 Kms whichever is earlier. The vehicle was purchased on 13.03.2018 and the vehicle completed 54,734 Kms on 30.12.2019. Thus, there was no obligation of OP No.1 to be performed in pursuance to warranty policy. It is further stated that no concern related to rusting was reported by the complainant during the warranty period. Further the OP No.1 was not privy to any transaction for repairs between the complainant and OP No.2 post conclusion of warranty. The OP No.1 has always fulfilled its warranty obligations and there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 13.03.2018 OP No.2, and the said vehicle in question has been utilized extensively to date. The vehicle has covered 85786 kms in a short period of 13.03.2018 to 29.05.2021 i.e., around three years and two months and still it is under continuous utilization. The said fact proves that the subject vehicle is in an absolute roadworthy condition. It is further stated that the complainant is regularly extensively utilizing the car. Despite lockdown in the Country, the vehicle must have covered around 1,00,000 kms till now in a short period. The spot rusting appears to be a result of usage of vehicle in extreme environmental conditions and continuous washing using hard water. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that since the complaint is without any merit and may be dismissal with costs.
4.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have failed t carry out necessary repairs to the vehicle which suffered from corrosion of its body parts.
8.     We have perused para 2 of warranty policy, annexed at Annexure R-2/4. The relevant para is reproduced here below.

         Term:

         “The term of the warranty shall be twenty-four (24) month or 40,000 kilometers (whichever occurs first) from the date of invoice to the first owner.”  

9.     On perusal of para 2(C) of the complaint, complainant witnessed corrosion/rusting on various parts of body shell in the month of May, 2020 i.e., after around 2 years 3 months of purchase of said vehicle after having covered distance of around 85,000 KM, which is beyond 24 months or 40,000 km. So, it is crystal clear that the warranty with regard to the vehicle in question had expired, when the complainant noticed the unusual corrosion/rusting.

         Moreover, in view of para 4 of warranty, the warranty shall not apply to corrosion, rusty of body parts and/or components.     

10.     In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case, with regard to any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, as such, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
18/01/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member