Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 490
Instituted on : 11.10.2018
Decided on : 24.08.2023
Sandeep Garg S/o Sh. Om Parkash R/o H.No. 2147/2, Ward No. 5, Pech Parasuraman, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., office at Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110071.
- Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Maruti Authorised Dealer, Sonepat Road, Rohtak. …….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Joshi Ahlawat, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gaurav Arya, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Ms. Lovina Singla, Advocate for the opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Ciaz Smart Hybrid Car bearing registration no. HR-12AD-2003, Chasis No.-280758 and Engine No.-3057769. The same was purchased by him from Nexa Jagmohan Motors Ltd. Rohtak for an amount of Rs.10,02,597/- vide invoice No. VSL17000066 dated 30.04.2017. He also got insured his above said vehicle and incurred an amount of approx. Rs.35,000/- upon insurance. He also taken extended warranty till 29.04.2021 for said car by expending an amount of Rs.13,844/-. Since the date of purchase of aforesaid car, there exists a mechanical defect in it as its warning light glows/blinks on display and when the complainant got it checked at the showroom of opposite party no. 2 then he was apprised by their serviceman that car’s hybrid system was not working properly. Initially, the serviceman of the opposite party no. 2 rectified the fault for the time being. But thereafter the said fault occurred time and again. On that complainant visited the office of the opposite party no. 2 at several times to get rectify his complaint but every time the serviceman of the opposite party no. 2 rectify the fault temporarily, which was occurred again and again The complainant visited many times to the office of the opposite party no. 2 but till date the above said fault has not been removed. The complainant also intimated the office of the opposite party no. 1 but no solution has been done qua said fault. Lastly on 22.07.2018, the complainant has again left the above said car at the showroom of opposite party no. 2 and the same is still lying with the showroom of the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that being a reputed company in the business of automobile, the complainant has intimated the opposite party no. 1 but despite assurances, problem of said car has not been sorted out till date, for the reasons best known to them. The complainant has visited approximately 11 times at the showroom of the opposite party no. 2 to get rectify the said fault but every time the serviceman of the opposite party no. 2 used to rectify the fault temporarily and finally on 24.07.2018, the complainant had left his above said car at the showroom of opposite party no. 2 which is still lying there. But despite rectifying the above said fault permanently the opposite party no. 2 sent a notice dated 16.08.2018 illegally wherein they have warned to claim parking charges. It is further submitted that the said car of the complainant has been driven on test drive for approximately 7000kms by the servicemen of the opposite party no. 2, whereas fuel of the complainant had been used for that purpose. As such, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed either to replace the said defective car with a new one and to bear all expenses of insurance and registration which would occur or to repay the above said entire sale consideration i.e. Rs.10,02,597/- alongwith registration charges, extended warranty charges and insurance premium charges alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of purchase of said car till its realization. It is also prayed that the opposite party No. 2 be directed to withdraw the said notice dated 16.08.2018 vide which they have warned the complainant either to take his car back or to pay parking charges.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that upon inspection it was observed that the main wiring harness was tempered and additional wire fitment was found in the vehicle in question. It is clear violation of warranty as per Clause 4(6), 4(7) & 4(10). As the problem in the vehicle was because of the extra wiring and local/unauthorized/Non-MGP(Maruti Genuine Parts) and not due to any problem in the vehicle, the repairs could not have been carried out under warranty and were to be carried out on paid basis. It is denied that since the date of purchase of the car, there exists a mechanical defect as its warning light blinks on display or that the complainant reported it at the workshop of opposite party no. 2 and the complainant was apprised that the car’s hybrid system was not working properly or that initially the problem was rectified but the said mistake occurred time and again or that the workshop of the opposite party no. 2 rectified the problem temporarily. It is also submitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of opposite party no. 2 on 12.06.2017 at 890 kms for Ist free inspection service and on 26.11.2017 at 4642 kms for 2nd free inspection service. No problem as related to warning light glowing was reported as demanded repairs. The vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of Maruti Sales & Services, New Delhi on 13.02.2018 and warning light blinking was reported as demanded repairs. Upon inspection, it was observed that the main wiring harness was tempered and additional wire fitment was found in the vehicle in question. It is clear violation of warranty as per Clause 4(6), 4(7) & 4(10). As the problem in the vehicle was because of the extra wiring and local/unauthorized/Non MGP and not due to any problem in the vehicle, the repairs could not have been carried out under warranty and were to be carried out on paid basis. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of opposite party no. 2 on 22.07.2018 for 3rd free inspection service at 12532 kms and warning light glowing was reported as demanded repairs. Proper service was carried out and the alleged problem of warning light glowing was rectified. The necessary repairs were carried out on free of costs basis under warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the same day. Vide letter dated 16.08.2018, the complainant was duly informed that his vehicle was made ready on 02.08.2018 and was requested to pick up his vehicle. But the complainant with malafide intentions has abandoned the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party no. 2. The vehicle is lying at the workshop in perfect OK and defect free condition. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Opposite party no. 2 appeared and submitted its reply that he is the service provider of the Maruti Suzuki Company and he is not the manufacturer of the cars. He provides service to the customers as per the company policy. The warranty is provided to the customers on behalf of the Maruti Suzuki Company by the opposite party no. 2. No expert opinion report has been produced who can prove that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect. The complainant handed over the vehicle on 24.07.2018 in the workshop of the opposite party. The complainant at the time of handing over the above said vehicle to opposite party no. 2 requested a loaner vehicle to meet his daily requirements. The opposite party no. 2 provided a loaner vehicle bearing registration no. HR-12AF-4117(Swift ZDI) with a condition that as soon as his vehicle ready for delivery the complainant would immediately return back the loaner vehicle and lift his repaired vehicle from opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that vehicle of the complainant was thoroughly checked by the expert team which has been specially called from Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Gurgaon for this very purpose and finally it was found that there was some minor fault in wiring of the vehicle, which was causing MI light glowing. The said problem was resolved and the vehicle was ready for the delivery since 02.08.2018. The complainant was delaying in returning the loaner vehicle of the opposite party no. 2 and in taking delivery of his own vehicle. The complainant was informed telephonically as well as through E-mail and registered post letter also to the collect the said vehicle but again to no effect. The opposite party no. 2 also sent a legal notice to the complainant in this regard and called upon the complainant to return the loaner vehicle and take back his original vehicle which is in perfect condition. But the same had no impact on the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and evidence of complainant closed by court order dated 09.05.2023. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex. R1/1 to R1/3 and closed his evidence on dated 06.07.2023. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW-2/A and closed his evidence on dated 12.06.2023.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case contention of the complainant is that he purchased a car from the opposite party No.2 on 30.04.2017 but the same is having mechanical/manufacturing defect in the car as its warning light glows and blink on display and the pick-up of the car was low. He has visited approximately 11 times at the showroom of the opposite party no. 2 to get rectify the fault of his car but every time the serviceman of the opposite party no. 2 used to rectify the fault temporarily and finally on 24.07.2018, the complainant had left his above said car at the showroom of opposite party no. 2 which is still lying there but despite to rectify the above said fault permanently opposite party No.2 sent a notice dated 16.08.2018 whereby they are claiming parking charges from the complainant. To prove the same complainant has placed on record documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C8, which shows that there was problem of “Pick-up low, warning light glowing/blinking, hybrid not work, noise from brakes etc.” but the same was could not be repaired despite repeated service. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that the onus to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the car, was on the opposite party. They should provide report of a technical person to prove that the car in question was free from defects as alleged by the complainant. If the same was in proper working condition, in that situation they should move an application before the Forum and a joint inspection can be done in the presence of expert/technician and a test drive should have been taken by the technician to prove this fact that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. We have also observed the reply of opposite party No.1 and in para no.4 of parawise reply, it has been specifically submitted that: “The vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of Maruti Sales & Service, New Delhi on 13.02.2018 and warning light blinking was reported as demanded repairs. Upon inspection it was observed that the main wiring harness was tempered and additional wire fitment was found in the vehicle”, which proves that allegations of complainant that vehicle was sent to higher workshop for repair and defect of ‘Warning light Glowing/blinking” was found. Hence the allegation of complainant is found correct. As per reply of opposite party no.1, it has been alleged that additional wire fitment was found in the vehicle in question but to prove this fact opposite party no.1 & 2 have not placed on record any document. The vehicle of the complainant was inspected by the technical team at Maruti Sales and Service, New Delhi. The joint report of technicians was also prepared at that time but the same is not placed on record by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them. Moreover if the vehicle was inspected by the higher Service Station, it is the prime duty of the respondents no.1 & 2 to call the complainant at the time of inspection but the same was not done. No photographs of inspection have been placed on record by the opposite parties. On the other hand, complainant has moved an application for the engagement of automobile expert for the inspection of defective vehicle. Meaning thereby, the complainant was very much sure that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. But no expert opinion has been placed on record by the opposite party. Documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 shows that despite repeated repairs, there is defect of ‘Warning light Glowing/blinking” which shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. So the respondent has supplied a defective vehicle to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of vehicle in question, i.e. Rs.1002597/- as mentioned in the complaint and affidavit and the same is not denied by the opposite parties.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the price of car in question i.e. Rs.1002597/-(Rupees ten lac two thousand five hundred and ninety seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.10.2018 till its realization and also pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The vehicle in question is already in the possession of opposite parties. However complainant is directed to return the loaner vehicle to the opposite parties at the time of making the payment, if the same is in his possession.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.08.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
