DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.337/2011
Mohd. Anees, S/o Shri Noor Mohd.
R/o. 93-A, Bharat Nagar Village,
Okhla, New Delhi-110025
….Complainant
Versus
- Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Nelson Mandela Road,
New Delhi-110070.
- M/s. AAA Vehicleades Pvt Ltd.
Through its General Manager, Sales
F-1/189, Savitri Nagar,
Panchsheel-Malviya Nagar Road,
New Delhi-110017
Also at:
B-80, Naraina Industrial Area-II,
Next to Bentex,
New Delhi-110028
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 12.09.2011
Date of Order : 15.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
1. Complainant has requested to pass an award directing M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and M/s AAA VEHICLE ADES Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1 & OP-2 respectively) to replace the car and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in favour of complainant etc.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant had booked new Maruti Suzuki Swift VXI 15.06.2011 with OP-2 which was delivered to him on 24.06.2011 for Rs. 5,04,302/- vide invoice No. VSL 1000490. The same was hypothecated to M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. The said car was got registered in the name of complainant vide registration NO. DL-3C-BJ-8380. After one week, some shade difference in colour of the said car was noticed. Mismatch in colour shades in the body of the car was visible. This was immediately brought to the notice of General Manager (sales) of OP-2 on 06.07.2011 vide complaint No.6330546154. The complainant requested to replace the car being brand new. The OP-2 refused to replace but he was told that car could be got re-painted free of cost to which, the complainant was not agreeable as same would bring down the market value of said vehicle. OP-2 was handed over the said vehicle on 06.07.2011 against duly signed receipt. It was assured that car would be replaced only after getting an approval from the authorities of OP-1. Since, it is a genuine and manufacturing defect, hence, the vehicle should be replaced in such circumstances. Nothing was done after a lapse of more than one month and the complainant was paying EMIs against the loan even though, he was not using the vehicle.
3. The complainant was frustrated on their inaction and finding no other option available to him, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 28.07.2011 and demanded replacement of the car in question.
4. The complainant got a letter dated 28.07.2011 from Maruti acknowledging his concerns but no assurance of replacement of the said vehicle was provided. As such, fraud has been played upon him. Hence the complaint.
5. OP-2 on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising some preliminary objections that the complaint is not covered under the definition of “Consumer”. The OP-2 further stated that the instant complaint suffers from delays and latches. It is further alleged that by no stretch of imagination, the complainant might have met with accident and thereafter got repainted locally. Normally, it is bumpers which first get damaged with dents and scratches rather body so is the case with complainant’s car. It was further admitted that the entire case of complainant is of mis-match of colour of bumpers and the body. It is further stated that the alleged shade difference in colour was noticed after 13 days of delivery not one week as alleged. It is also denied that GM (Sales) of OP-2 ever conceded to the defect and accepted colour shade difference at manufacturing stage. No document or expert opinion has been filed by the complainant to prove the above averment. It was also stated that a pertinent question to be asked to the complainant that when it was within his knowledge that OP-1 has a huge network of its own showroom and service stations why said car was not taken to the OP-1’s service station under free servicing period. It is highly unimaginable that the mis-matched shade difference in colour of car which is ‘pearl metallic arctic white” is not visible while the car was in show-room. It is further denied that the OP-2 did nothing for one month. It is on the insistence of complainant that bumpers of said car have been re-painted apropos strict technical norms and procedures laid down by OP-1. Legal Notice was responded as well and further legal notice dated 05.11.2011 was sent through Speed Post AD demanding that said car should be taken back and OP-2 rightfully demanded an amount of Rs.196000/- as parking charges for a period of 98 days. The complainant had tries to cheat OPs by concocting the story. The complaint, being unethical and arbitrary demands and further suppressing the facts, not coming with clean hands, should be dismissed with costs.
6. Likewise, OP-1 also filed written reply interalia raising some preliminary objections that the vehicle in question is FCOK and PDI certified on date of sale, which proves its perfect OK conditions in all aspects including paint. The OP-1 also stated that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder for proper parties. The OP-1 should neither be necessary party nor performa party as no cause of action is disclosed against OP-1. The compensation u/s 14(10 (d) of the Act could be awarded to the complaint for any loss/injury suffered by the complainant due to negligence of OP-2. It is also submitted by OP-1 that the painting of car is lengthy and exhaustive process of appro. 8 hours. No complaint was received about defects in paint of any vehicle in the particular batch in which vehicle in question was painted. It can be inferred that no manufacturing defect in paint process, quality of paint or material can be assigned. It was further stated by the OP-1 that the subject vehicle has undergone all the checks and only then FCOK (Final Check OK) was given. OP also carry out Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI). The warranty is not absolute and subject to certain terms & conditions as enunciated in Owner’s Manual & Service booklet. As such, the obligation under warranty is specific. It was further maintained that the vehicle in question was defect free and in perfect OK condition at the time of sale by OP-2.
7. All the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit. Written statement is on record, so is rejoinder. The case was kept for final arguments on 08.02.2022 and 02.08.2022, none was present except counsel for complainant on 02.08.2022. Since it is an old case, therefore, the arguments were concluded. Moreover, the written submission of all the parties are on record.
8. This Commission has gone into entire material placed on record, due considerations was given to the arguments. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased a new Maruti Suzuki Swift VXI from show-room of OP-2 on 24.06.2011. After one week or so, it was noticed that there is some difference in colour, to say that different shade of colour were visible in the body of car more particularly front and rear bumper and front fender. The above defect, was brought to notice of General Manager (Sales) of OP-2 on 06.07.2011. The complainant requested to replace the vehicle which was rejected and later on the complainant agreed to repaint the said vehicle. The subject vehicle was left at the premises of OP-2. The said vehicle remained parked at the premises of OP-2 for 98 days; Despite the notices dated 28.07.2011 and legal notice sent by OP-2 dated 05.11.2011 to collect the car as result of which, the OP-2 demanded Rs.1,96,000/- for idle parking of the vehicle whereas it was repainted on 28.07.2011 when complainant was requested to check and take the vehicle back. Since subject vehicle was in the possession of OP-2 and complainant was ready to take the vehicle in running condition, accordingly, this Forum vide its order dated 13.12.2011 directed the OP-2 to return the vehicle immediately and deficiency of service and compensation shall be decided, if any, on merit.
9. OP-1 further maintained that it has no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer. The relationship between OP-1 & OP-2 is that of Principal to Principal basis only. The Complainant entered into contract for purchase of vehicle with OP-2 and paid consideration to OP-2. Hence there is no privity of contract with OP-1. Hence the averments of the OP-1 has been gone through. This Commission is satisfied that the OP-1 has squarely discharged its liability.
10. The OP-2 invoked the clause 4 of warranty Policy – which suggests that there are limitations for the application of warranty and no replacement/repair at fee cost is allowed in case of the following conditions :-
- sub-clause (4) – any repairs or replacement required as a result of accident or collision;
- sub-clause (5) – any defects caused by misuse, negligence, abnormal use or insufficient care; and
- sub-clause (10) – any vehicle which has been assembled, disassembled, adjusted or repaired by other than a Maruti Suzuki authorised dealer/service sanction. Annexure R2/1 (colly).
11. The OP-2 vide its evidence by way of affidavit brought on record the following from the history of subject vehicle (Annexure –B2/2) that:-
- vide job-card No. JC11012558 & Bill No. BC11000557 dated 07.02.2012 of OP-2 – Head light bulb outside fitting & both bumper show light out-side fitted;
- Vide Job-card No.JC12000046 & Bill No. BC12000021 dated 02.04.2012 of M/s Apra Auto (I) P. Ltd. 0 left side tail light broken, right hand side door side mirror light not working and running board damage; and
- Vide Job-card No.JC12005768 & Bill No.BR12003038 dated 16.08.2012 of OP-2 – Bumper loose, Windshield glass crack and left tail light broken and rear bumper broke, need change.
12. It is evident from the above that subject vehicle met the accident and local repair was got done by the complainant. Therefore, the colour mismatch on the various parts of body of said vehicle is on account of repainting by the local repairer.
13. After considering the facts and circumstances in the case and narrations mentioned above; this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant’s case for replacement or seeking compensation does not have any substantive evidence in its favour. As has been noted above and proved to the satisfaction of the Commission by OPs that vehicle met accident as could be substantiated from the vehicle history as shown by the OP-2 in its evidence-in-affidavit. As regards to claim of Rs.1,96,000/- as parking charges, this Commission vide its order dated 13.12.2011 allowed the release of vehicle and no parking charges were allowed at that time also. Hence, this Commission is of the opinion after considering the facts of the case that no parking charges should be allowed. The complaint fails.
No order as to the costs.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
