Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/870/2016

Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

07 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/870/2016
Date of Institution	:	27/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	07/12/2017

 

Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma s/o Dr. Y.R. Sharma, r/o H.No.921, Aashirwad Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO 39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, Manager

2.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, 3-A, IMT-Manesar, Gurgaon-122051, M.D.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 7.12.2015, the complainant bought a Maruti Suzuki Baleno Delta CVT model (petrol) car from CM Auto Sales (L) Ltd., Mohali and spent an amount of approx. Rs.7,45,000/-. After driving 600 kms., the complainant noticed whistle type noise while driving the car @ 1000-1500 rpm at the speed of 40 km to 60 km. The complainant brought the same to the notice of the company on 7.1.2016 during first service, but, the mechanics failed to notice the engine noise.  The complainant again visited for checking the vehicle on 24.2.2016, but, they failed to rectify the same.  In the month of May, 2015 (in fact 2016)  after so many calls and Whatsapp chats to company’s engineer Mr. Aman Goyal, finally the part (Damper Mount) was installed  which had no relation with the engine noise and there was not even 1% noise level reduction. After continued calls and Whatsapp messages from the complainant, Mr. Aman sent another engineer who installed one more Damper Mount on the chassis, but, the noise level never reduced. The complainant sent mails to the company directly and the company people closed the complaints of the customer without contacting the customer.  The complainant wrote to the OPs that if the noise was in the CVT (Autogear), why their engineers installed two damper mount on chassis.   The complainant also wrote an email dated 30.8.2016 to the company, but, the OPs failed to set right the problem of noise in the car.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs in their written statement have denied that there was a whistle type noise while driving or that the vehicle was sent for noise problem and the problem was not rectified. Upon observation and road test no abnormal noise was observed in the vehicle which was duly explained to the complainant. Mere reporting of a defect to the workshop does not substantiate the existence of the same. The damper mount was fitted in the vehicle on free of cost basis under warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfect ok condition. It has been stated that the complainant himself has assumed manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which he is neither qualified nor has any expertise to comment. Pleading that neither there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
6.         The present consumer complaint was filed by the complainant alleging that there was noise in the CVT (auto gear system) of the Maruti Suzuki Baleno Delta car, which he purchased on 7.12.2015 after spending an amount of approximately Rs.7,45,000/-. The grouse of the complainant is that since the beginning, he was complaining about the noise, but, despite installing two damper mount on the chassis, problem of noise in the car could not be set right/rectified. Hence, the present consumer complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
7.         The stand taken by the OPs is that mere reporting of a defect to the workshop does not substantiate the existence of the same.  It has also been contended that the damper mount was fitted in the vehicle in question free of cost under warranty and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant in a perfect condition.  It has further been contended that the complainant has assumed such a defect in the vehicle for which he is neither qualified nor has expertise to comment.  To corroborate the same, the OPs, during the proceedings of the present case, vide order dated 22.9.2017 got agreed that the vehicle in question will be taken to their workshop on 27.9.2017 for inspection and inspection report was to be submitted before the Forum on 10.10.2017.  Instead of 10.10.2017, the aforesaid report was filed on 30.10.2017 in which again the same stand had been taken by the OPs alleging that the “customer is comparing his vehicle with other OEM CVT models like (Honda and Mercedes) and he is not ready to understand that it is an operational sound of CVT in his vehicle.”
8.         Despite submitting the report on 30.10.2017, it was stated by the complainant on 21.11.2017 that a major part i.e. CVT worth Rs.2,60,000/- has been replaced and  the dispute remains in respect of compensation and costs of litigation only.
9.         We are of the opinion that when the OPs were aware of the defect in the vehicle since beginning when the issue was raised before them by the complainant, still they took approximately one year for the purpose of setting right the problem of noise in the car that too after filing of the present consumer complaint before this Forum.  Therefore, the act of the OPs for forcing the complainant to indulge into present unnecessary litigation by non-paying heed to his genuine requests and later on changing the major part i.e. CVT, after which the vehicle in question is working properly, proves deficiency in service and negligence on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
2. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
07/12/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member