DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.405 of 10-08-2011
Decided on 20-12-2011
Satish Kumar son of Shri Banarsi Dass, Resident of House No.15532, Hazura Kapura Colony, Street No.1, Bathinda
(since deceased), through his legal representatives:-
1. Anuradha widow of Satish Kumar;
2. Kapil Bansal son of Satish Kumar;
3. Naveen Kumar son of Satish Kumar;
All residents of House No.15532, Hazura-Kapura Colony, Street No.1, Bathinda.
4. Disha Bansal D/o Satish Kumar, now wife of Bharat Bhushan Singla, Resident of Main Bazar, Purani Mandi, near Mati
Halwai, Budhlada Mandi, District Mansa. .......Complainant
Versus
Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its CMD.
Hira Automobiles Ltd., (Authorized Maruti Dealer), Corporate Office, Rajbaha Road, Patiala-147001, through its
proprietor.
Hira Automobiles Ltd., Bhai Complex, Malout Road, Muktsar, through its General Manager.
Tara Automobiles, Bathinda (Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer), Opposite ITI, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its
proprietor.
......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: Ms. Mandeep Kaur, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1
Sh. K.K.Vinocha, counsel for opposite party Nos.2&3
Sh. Amanpal Singh, counsel for opposite party No.4
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a patient of Kidney (T2DM-DW-CKS Stage5, he required to visit a doctor thrice a week. For his personal necessity, he purchased one Maruti Wagon R VXI BS IV bearing Engine No.K10BN4 103935, Chassis No.MA3EWDE1S00143293 white colour from the opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs.3,90,718.35 vide Invoice No.SL10000280 dated 11.08.2010 with two year warranty. Inadvertently, the temporary certificate of registration No.PB-11-AN(T) 5336 was issued in the name of Naveen Kumar son of the complainant for the period from 11.08.2010 to 10.09.2010 and later on it was registered with the Registering Authority, Bathinda against No.PB-03-X-7707. The complainant has alleged that after purchasing the said vehicle, it started giving pick up problem. The son of the complainant reported the said matter to the local Maruti Authorized Dealer i.e. opposite party No.4, they informed the complainant that the picking up problem will vanish after services but the said problem persisted. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.4 along with vehicle and informed them that the vehicle is continuously giving engine running problem and it has pick up problem. The officials of the opposite party No.3 attended the vehicle in question vide Job Card No.JC11000188 dated 07.04.2011 and checked the vehicle. The repairs were carried out on the vehicle by opening its engine and some parts were changed by the opposite party No.3. The complainant informed the officials of the opposite party No.3 that the said vehicle has manufacturing defects as its engine has been opened for repair within few months of its purchase. The officials at the opposite party No.4, after repairing, assured the complainant that the vehicle has been repaired and it will not give problem but even after the repairs, the vehicle in question continued to create pick up problem and its engine gave noise whenever switched on and reverse gear shifting was very hard. On 29.07.2011, the complainant's son again brought the vehicle in question to the opposite party No.4 and they attended to the car vide Job Card No.JC11003608 dated 29.07.2011 for repairs. The vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect as such its engine has been opened by the officials of the opposite party No.4 for repairs. The complainant has further alleged that if it did not have any manufacturing defect, its engine would not have been opened for four years at least under normal conditions. The engine of the said vehicle has broken down within a few months of its purchase and it is within warranty period as such the opposite party No.4 has been carrying out repairs free of cost but after the warranty period gets over the complainant has to bear the repair cost. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to replace the defective vehicle with new one of same model or to refund the price of the said vehicle alongwith interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their written statements. The opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the opposite party No.1 being manufacturer, gives warranty to all its new vehicles. The said warranty terms are part of sale contract and are binding on both the parties. The said warranty is the only obligation of the opposite party No.1 and is for a period of 24 months or 40,000 Kms from the date of purchase. The said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms & conditions and limitations as mentioned in Owner's Manual & Service Booklet. As per periodic maintenance schedule, the customer has to compulsorily obtain the Ist free inspection service at 1000 Kms or 1 month, second free inspection service at 5000 Kms or 6 months and third inspection service at 10,000 Kms or 12 months (whichever comes first) from the date of purchase. Apart from 3 free services, two paid services have to be obtained at 20,000 Kms or 24 months and 30,000 Kms or 36 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that as per clause 3, the obligation of the opposite party No.1 is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. On merits, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the relationship between the opposite party No.1 and the dealer is of Principle-to-Principle basis only as per the Dealership Agreement executed between the opposite parties. The complainant entered into an independent contract for purchase of the said vehicle with the opposite party No.3. The complainant did not bring the vehicle for obtaining Ist free inspection service which ought to have obtained on completion of one month or 1000 Kms whichever event occur first from the date of sale of new vehicle as such, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of warranty as per clause 4(8)&(9). Despite violations of the terms and conditions, the vehicle was attended by the expert service engineers of the opposite party No.4 on 07.04.2011 at 4802 Kms. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop and engine overhauling was carried out under warranty as per clause 3 of warranty to the complainant. All the automobiles companies across the globe stands warranty for their products for particular period and in case of any defect, due to poor workmanship at the time of manufacturing, the obligation of the companies is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. The complainant after extensive road test and trails, took the delivery of the vehicle from the workshop to his entire satisfaction and without any protest. The complainant executed a satisfaction note at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle which stands testimony to the services rendered by the opposite party No.4. The opposite party No.1 has denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The complainant himself has assessed manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which he is neither qualified nor have any expertise to comment. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the complainant took the vehicle at the workshop of the opposite party No.4 for obtaining third free inspection service on 29.07.2011 at 6923 Kms. The vehicle was inspected by the expert service engineer and did not observe any abnormality in the gear shifting of vehicle. The performance of gear shifting was found OK and as per set cylinder head & valve of engine was replaced under warranty free of charge to the complainant alongwith carrying minor adjustments to the vehicle.
3. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that Naveen Kumar son of the complainant had taken test drive, finalized the deal and signed all the documents and as wished by Naveen Kumar, the bills and other documents finally were issued in the name of Satish Kumar. The opposite party Nos.2&3 has admitted that the vehicle in question has been purchased by Naveen Kumar in the name of Satish Kumar S/o Banarsi Dass on 11.08.2010. The Manufacturer provided the warranty for two years or 40,000 Kms of run whichever occurs first. Warranty was provided with certain limitations. The applicable warranty limitations are read as under:-
“This warranty shall not apply for (h) any vehicle which has not been operated in accordance with the operating instructions in the Maruti Suzuki Owner's Manual; (i) any vehicle which has not received, during warranty term, the service inspections prescribed in the Maruti Suzuki Owner's manual.”
The opposite party Nos.2&3 have further pleaded that neither the complainant nor Naveen Kumar ever came for servicing of the vehicle or for any other purpose after 11.08.2011. As per computerized service record of the manufacturer, the vehicle in question has been brought thrice uptill 12.10.2011. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The allegations are not supported by any opinion of independent expert in the line of Automobile. Engine was not opened, only replaceable/repairable parts were replaced.
4. The opposite party No.4 has pleaded that the complainant or his son has never approached the opposite party No.4 nor they ever reported any defect in the car in question. The complainant's son has never complained about the picking up the problem in the car in question. The son of the complainant had approached the opposite party No.4 for the first time on 07.04.2011 for service of the car in question and the opposite party No.4 provided the full service to the same to the satisfaction of the complainant/ his representative vide Job Sheet No.JC11000188 dated 07.04.2011 and charged only Rs.963/- from the son of the complainant for the parts which are not covered under warranty and the son of the complainant was fully satisfied with the service provided by them. He had also brought the vehicle on 29.07.2011 to the opposite party No.4 for service. It had again provided the proper service to the car in question and only minor engine repairs were done by the opposite party no.4 and charged Rs.1,184/- from the complainant on account of non warranty parts. There was no manufacturing defect in the engine of the car in question.
5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. The complainant being patient of T2DM-DW-CKS stage-5, required, thrice a week to visit Nephrologist for management of his health. The complainant had purchased one Maruti Wagon R VXI BS IV bearing Engine No.K10BN4103935, Chassis No.MA3EWDE1S00143293 white colour from the opposite party No.3 of Rs.3,90,718.35 on 11.08.2010 with two year warranty. Inadvertently, the temporary certificate of registration No.PB-11-AN(T) 5336 was issued in the name of Naveen Kumar son of the complainant. Thereafter, it was registered with the Registering Authority, Bathinda vide No. PB-03-X-7707. The vehicle in question started giving problems relating to pick up. The problem was reported to the local Maruti Authorized Dealer i.e. opposite party No.4 who told the complainant that this problem will be vanished after services but the said problem remained. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.4 for complaint regarding the engine pick up problem. The officials of the opposite party No.3 attended the said vehicle vide Job Card No.JC11000188 dated 07.04.2011 and checked the vehicle. The necessary repairs were carried out on the vehicle by opening its engine and some parts as detailed below were changed:-
Filter Assy Oil, Bolt, Engine Oil, Pipe, Air suction, Gasket Cylinder Head, Block Assy Cylinder, PAN Oil, O-Ring Oil Pan, Plat, Oil Pan Baffle, Piston Set, Ring Set Piston, Connrod Assy, Crankshaft, Plate, Sensor, Bearing, Crankshaft upper, Bearing Crankshaft lower, Bearing Crank Thrust, O-Ring Oil Gallery, Seal, Crankshaft front oil, Gauge Oil Level, Liquid Gasket (Three Bond-1215).
The said vehicle after repairs, continued to give pick up problem and its engine gave noise whenever switched on and reverse gear shifting was very hard. On 29.07.2011, the son of the complainant again brought the vehicle to the opposite party No.4 and they attended the said vehicle vide Job Card No.JC11003608 dated 29.07.2011 for repairs. The complainant has further submitted that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect and as a result of which, the engine was opened by the opposite party No.4 for repairs. The engine of the said vehicle has broken within a few months of its purchase and within warranty period as such the opposite party No.4 has been carrying out repairs free of cost but after the warranty period gets over the complainant has to bear the repair cost. The complainant has further submitted that the vehicle in question is not road worthy at all and due to the manufacturing defect, the complainant could not use it optimum rather he had to take the vehicle on hire whenever he visited the doctor for management for sustenance of life and had to incur huge amount and faced undue financial loss.
8. The opposite party No.1 has submitted that the relation between the opposite party No.1 and dealer is principle-to-principle basis as per the dealership agreement executed between the opposite parties. The complainant entered into an independent contract for purchase of the said vehicle with the opposite party No.3 and paid the consideration to them only. The opposite party No.1 being manufacturer of car, gives warranty for a term of 24 months or 40,000 Kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. The said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms, conditions and limitations provided at the time of sale by the opposite party No.1 which is part and parcel of sale contract. The complainant has to maintain the vehicle according to the terms and conditions provided to him. He has concocted a false story as he did not bring the vehicle for obtaining 1st free inspection service which ought to have obtained on completion of one month or 1000 Kms whichever event occur first from the date of sale of new vehicle. The complainant is negligent and careless in handling the vehicle. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of warranty as per clause 4(8)&(9) and failed to abide by warranty terms but despite violations of the terms and conditions, the vehicle was duly attended by the expert service engineers of the opposite party No.4 on 07.04.2011 at 4802 Kms. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop and engine overhauling was carried out under warranty as per clause 3 of warranty to the complainant. All the automobiles companies across the globe stands warranty for their products for particular period and in case of any defect due to poor workmanship at the time of manufacturing, the obligation of the companies is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent without charging any cost for parts or labour. The complainant after taking road test and trails, took the delivery of the vehicle from the workshop to his satisfaction and without any protest. The complainant himself has assessed manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which he is neither qualified nor have any expertise to comment. The complainant did not report the vehicle for service or with alleged problem after obtaining the third free inspection service at any authorized workshop of the opposite party No.1 which refute the averments made by the complainant. The complainant sent the vehicle at the workshop of the opposite party No.4 for obtaining the third free inspection service on 29.07.2011 at 6923 Kms. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop and did not observe any defect in the gear shifting of the vehicle. The performance of gear shifting was found OK and as per set standards and to remove the apprehensions of the complainant, gasket cylinder head and valve of engine was replaced under the warranty free of charge to the complainant along with carrying minor adjustments to the vehicle. The complainant after service, took the delivery of the same from the workshop and threatened to approach this Forum for realization of his unwarranted demands. The minor adjustments were carried by the opposite party No.1 free of cost as vehicle was in warranty, defect free and in perfect OK condition. Regarding warranty, the opposite party No.1 has referred the clause Nos.6&8 of the warranty policy. The complainant has not paid any consideration to the opposite party No.1 in relating to sale of vehicle nor paid any consideration on account of obtaining alleged repairs as such the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party No.1.
9. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have no branch office at Bathinda. One Naveen Kumar son of Satish Kumar approached the opposite party No.3 for purchase of the vehicle in question who after test drive, selected and purchased the same in the name of one Satish Kumar son of Banarsi Dass. Naveen Kumar signed undertaking and other relevant documents at Muktsar and took the delivery of the car at Muktsar to his satisfaction. No cause of action wholly or in part arises to the complainant against the opposite party Nos.2&3 as the opposite party No.3 has mere sold the vehicle at Muktsar being dealer of manufacturer who has given warranty regarding performance of the vehicle subject to certain limitations. He was provided manual book containing tips to use the vehicle, warranty terms and its limitations, free service coupons and schedule of service etc. After delivery of the car, neither the complainant nor Naveen Kmar approached the opposite party Nos.2&3 at any point of time and has not got the vehicle serviced as per time schedule provided for the purpose. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have further submitted that there was no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question as no expert evidence has been placed on file by the complainant.
10. The opposite party Nos.2&3 have further submitted that Naveen Kumar son of the complainant had taken test drive, finalized the deal and signed all the documents and as wished by Naveen Kumar, the bills and other documents were issued in the name of Satish Kumar. The vehicle in question has been purchased by Naveen Kumar in the name of Satish Kumar on 11.08.2010. The Manufacturer provided the warranty for two years or 40,000 Kms of run whichever occurs first. The complainant or Naveen Kumar have never come for service of the vehicle or for any purpose after 11.08.2011. The computerized service record of manufacturer reveals that the vehicle in question has been brought thrice uptill 12.10.2011 to different authorized service provider. First complainant's visit with Jamksh Vehicle Ades Kashmir Pvt. Ltd on 04.12.2010 after running the vehicle for 320 Kms. There was no complaint against performance of the vehicle. Demanded repair was 2 panel repair & bumper setting, which was done and customer took the delivery to his entire satisfaction. The second visit was with Tara Automobiles, Bathinda on 18.04.2011 after running the car for 4802 Kms and the demanded repair was Oil leakage to be checked. Second service was done, replaceable parts were replaced, oil was changed. Nothing was charged except oil charges. Customer who ever brought the vehicle, took the delivery of the car to his satisfaction. The third visit was with Tara Automobiles, Bathinda on 09.08.2011 after running the car for 6923 Kms and the demanded repair was done and the 3rd free service was also done. Customer who ever brought the vehicle, took the delivery after services to his satisfaction. On 09.08.2011 at 17.47, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle but has filed the present complaint with pre-determined mind before taking delivery on 09.08.2011 after leveling the wrong and false allegations. The defect complained by the representative of the complainant, were removed and he took the delivery of the car to his satisfaction. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Engine was not opened, only replaceable/repairable parts were replaced.
11. The opposite party No.4 has submitted that the complainant or his son never complained about the pick up the problem in the car in question to the opposite party No.4 as alleged. The son of the complainant had approached the opposite party No.4 on 07.04.2011 for service of the car in question and the opposite party No.4 provided the service to the car in question to the satisfaction of the complainant/his representative vide Job Sheet No.JC11000188 dated 07.04.2011 and charged only Rs.963/- from the son of the complainant for the parts which are not covered under warranty. The opposite party No.4 has not given any assurance to the complainant or his son rather has provided proper service to the car on 07.04.2011 for the first time. The son of the complainant was fully satisfied with the service provided to the car in question. The son of the complainant had brought the car in question to the opposite party No.4 on 29.07.2011 for service and the opposite party No.4 had again provided proper service to the car and only minor engine repair was done by the opposite party no.4 and charged Rs.1,184/- from the complainant on account of non warranty parts. There was no manufacturing defect in the engine of the car in question as alleged by the complainant.
12. The complainant had purchased the vehicle in question on 11.08.2010 vide Ex.C-1. On 07.04.2011 i.e. approximately after eight months of its purchase, the vehicle had problem with regard to engine and pickup. The repairs were carried out on the vehicle by opening its engine and the following parts were changed:-
Filter Assy Oil 1
Bolt 4
Engine Oil 3.5 Ltrs.
Pipe, Air suction 1
Gasket Cylinder Head 1
Block Assy Cylinder 1
PAN Oil 1 ltr.
O-Ring Oil Pan 1
Plate, Oil Pan Baffle 1
Piston Set 1
Ring Set Piston 3
Connrod Assy 1
Crankshaft 1
Plate, Sensor 1
Bearing, Crankshaft upper 4
Bearing Crankshaft lower 4
Bearing Crank Thrust 2
O-Ring Oil Pump Case 1
O-Ring Oil Gallery 2
Seal, Crankshaft front oil 1
Gauge Oil Level 1
Liquid Gasket (Three Bond-1215) 1
13. The complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the said vehicle as its engine has been opened within few months of its purchase. After repair, there remained the problem of pickup and thus the engine started giving noise, whenever it switched on and reverse gear shifting was very hard. On 29.07.2011, the vehicle was again brought to the opposite party No.4 for repairs which was duly attended by the opposite party No.4 vide job card No.JC11003608 dated 29.07.2011, Ex.C-7. The complaints of the complainant were duly attended by the opposite parties and has handed over the vehicle to the complainant after proper repairs.
14. According to the opposite parties, the complainant has not complied with the instructions provided under the owner's manual and as per terms and conditions and he has been plying the vehicle in negligent and improper manner. The complainant has failed to approach the opposite parties for first free service. He has approached the opposite parties for the first time on 04.12.2010 when the vehicle of the complainant was run at 320 Kms and at that time, there was no complaint regarding the performance of the vehicle, demanded repairs of 2 panel and bumber setting were done and the complainant took delivery to his entire satisfaction. The repair was provided free of cost. The complainant had visited for the second time on 18.04.2011 to Tara Automobiles, Bathinda after plying his vehicle 4802 Kms and the demanded repair of Oil leakage was checked, second service was done, replaceable parts were replaced, oil was changed. On the second visit, the opposite parties have charged nothing except oil charges. The complainant/his representative has taken the vehicle to his satisfaction. The complainant had visited third time on 09.08.2011 to Tara Automobiles, Bathinda after plying his vehicle 6923 Kms and the demanded repair was done. A person/customer who brought the vehicle, took the delivery of the vehicle to his satisfaction. The complainant/his representative took delivery of the vehicle on 09.08.2011 after third service at 17.47 and at the same time and on the same day, he had approach this Forum.
This shows that the complainant has approached this Forum with pre-determined mind and had filed the present complaint on the same day before taking the delivery of his vehicle i.e. on 09.08.2011
15. The complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the said vehicle but he has not placed on file any expert evidence of any automobiles mechanic/engineer to prove his version. The minor defects, that occurred with regard to Filter Assy Oil, Bolt, Engine Oil, Pipe, Air suction, Gasket Cylinder Head, Block Assy Cylinder, PAN Oil, O-Ring Oil Pan, Plate, Oil Pan Baffle, Piston Set, Ring Set Piston, Connrod Assy, Crankshaft, Plate, Sensor, Bearing Crankshaft upper, Bearing Crankshaft lower, Bearing Crank Thrust, O-Ring Oil Pump Case, O-Ring Oil Gallery, Seal, Crankshaft Front Oil, Gauge, Oil level, Liquid Basket (Thee Bond-1215) etc were duly repaired by the opposite parties.
16. The coupons for the free inspection, provided to the complainant. The complainant had to approach the opposite parties for free service after the purchase of the vehicle.
17. The first free service was due after one month or after plying the vehicle 1000 Kms but the complainant has not come for the first free service. Ex.R-6 i.e. Vehicle History shows that the first visit of the customer to M/s Jamkash Vehicleades (Kashmir) Pvt. Ltd. on 03.09.2010 at milage 320 Kms. The repairs if any, were conducted. This shows that the demanded repairs of 2 panel and bumper setting were done and nothing was charged on this account but he had not approached the opposite parties for the first free service which was due after one month of its purchase i.e. 11.09.2010 or on 1000 Kms.
18. The second visit of the complainant was after plying the vehicle for 4802 Kms vide job card dated 07.04.2011, the demanded repairs of oil leakage checked, other repairs described in job sheet No.GC11000188 were also provided. Thereafter, the complainant visited for the third time on 29.07.2011 after plying his vehicle 6923 Kms, demanded repairs were of wheel alignment, oil filter change, reverse gear shifting hard, engine noise checked. Some parts were checked and repaired. Ex.R-8 i.e. job card No.JC1100188 dated 07.04.2011 shows that all work was done within warranty, bill in credit. Vide Ex.R-9 the complainant has signed the satisfaction note dated 07.04.2011 for repair. Ex.R-12 shows that the third free service has been done. All the repairs have been done to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that he has to hire taxi but no such evidence has been placed on file by him.
19. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
20-12-2011
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
