Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/608/2018

Naveen Singh Maan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pawitter Singh

31 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                    

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/608/2018
Date of Institution	:	27/11/2018
Date of Decision	:	31/01/2020

 

 

Naveen Singh Maan son of Sh. Randhir Singh Maan, resident of house No.217, Khushal Enclave, Phabat, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 through their Managing Directors.
2. Nexa Autopace Network Private Limited, Gate No.3, Elante Mall, 178/178-A, Ground Floor, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh 160001 through their Managing Directors.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Autopace Network Private Limited, Plot No.112-113, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh 160102 through their Managing Directors.  

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Paras Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Counsel for OPs 2 & 3 alongwith Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative of OPs 2 & 3.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Averments in brief are on 20.5.2017, complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Nexa Baleno car from OP-2, manufactured by OP-1. His case is, in the month of June 2017, he started facing some issues with the air conditioner of the car and the defect was brought to the notice of OP-3/service centre. The issue was not resolved. Again he called OP-3/service centre and they inspected the vehicle and changed certain parts.  His further case is, on 18.9.2017, an email was received from the OPs to support the claim of defect with proof. Again the repair was got done on 3.4.2018. After receiving the job card, the complainant waited for a considerably long period of more than a month against the assurance of 3-4 days. Hence, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant prayed for refund of value of the car i.e. Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest; compensation of Rs.55,000/- and Rs.45,500/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and the crux of its reply is, on third free inspection on 3.4.2018, which was done at 11359 kms. the AC was found not effective as was reported and it was repaired.  Subsequent thereto, it is functioning well. Even earlier a consumer complaint was filed which was withdrawn on 6.11.2018, therefore, the warranty policy was followed and nothing was charged from the complainant for curing the defect and the AC is now working perfectly. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     OPs 2 & 3 filed their joint written reply and claimed the consumer complaint to be vexatious. The earlier consumer complaint filed was withdrawn and the warranty policy was followed, therefore, vehicle cannot be replaced.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.     Separate rejoinders were filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.     Per pleadings of the parties and the evidence led, the sole defect during the warranty period pointed out was the AC was not effective. This is the admitted case, in terms of the warranty policy, the defect was cured and according to the OPs, the AC is now functioning well and more than two years have already passed from the date of purchase and there is no defect now.  The complainant neither in his pleadings nor brought any expert evidence to show the defect is still persisting in the AC of the vehicle while contra there is evidence led by the OPs, defect was cured as per warranty.  As such, matter of replacement of the vehicle, as a whole, is out of question. OPs have relied on case titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr., JT  (2006) (4) SCC 113 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :-

                 “The manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the car or refund its price merely because some defect appears which can be rectified or defective part can be replaced under warranty.”

 

For want of any expert evidence it cannot be said there is any manufacturing defect in the part of vehicle or vehicle as a whole warrants replacement.

8.     Per pleadings of the complainant, there was only a defect in the AC and no other defect was noticed or existed in the vehicle.  For a single defect, which was cured free during the warranty period, complainant has prayed for refund of the total price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.6,50,000/- without showing any other manufacturing defect. It is not his case the vehicle is not running smoothly and around 3 years had already lapsed and even then complainant has prayed for the refund of the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-.
9.     No reasons assigned why earlier consumer complaint was withdrawn if defect still persisted, though it was not decided on merit. Certainly it does not operate as res judicata.  
10.     From the adduced evidence, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out on the part of the OPs. Once the defect noticed in the AC was cured, per warranty policy, and for a single defect replacement of the vehicle as a whole or say its value could not be refunded to the complainant.
11.     In view of above discussion, we find no merit in present consumer complaint and proceed to dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
12.     Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
31/01/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President