Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/220/2018

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/220/2018
Date of Institution	:	15/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	08/04/2019

 

Surinder Kumar, R/o H.No.177, Phase-6, Mohali.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070, through its Managing Director.

 

2.      CM Auto Sales Pvt. Limited, SCF No. 325, New Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

          2^nd Address:- Shop No. 194, Sector 48-C, New Motor Market, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Sh. Amit Bhanot, Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2.

 

PER Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased one set of front shockers for his Maruti vehicle from Opposite Party No.2 on 10.03.2018 for Rs.5,300/- (bill Annexure C-1) and got the same fitted from a Mechanic who the test drive, noticed that the Shockers were giving undue noise, therefore, he asked the Complainant to get the Shockers replaced. On being approached, Opposite Party No.2 refused to replace or refund the money paid on the ground that said parts were not carrying warranty and asked the Complainant to send Complaint through e-mail with a copy to Opposite Party No.1, which he did vide Annexure C-2. In response whereof, the Complainant was asked to furnish his vehicle and contact number (Annexure C-3), which was duly provided vide Annexure C-4. Thereafter, the Complainant waited patiently for the response from the side of the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. 
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant entered into an independent transaction for purchase of front shockers with Opposite Party No.2 to which the answering Opposite Party was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same. Further, the Complainant admittedly got the shockers fitted from local mechanic, to which the answering Opposite Party was not privy. It has been asserted that no report or finding has been placed on record by the Complainant that concludes that the shockers were defective. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 has filed its separate reply, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that answering Opposite Party does not provide any warranty or guarantee on any of its spare parts on its own; whatever warranty or guarantee is being given on the spare parts, it is being given by Opposite Party No.1 only. The answering Opposite Party supplied the genuine set of shockers supplied by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant and also issued the invoice for the same. If there was any defect, it could be on account of wrong fitment of the shockers or due to some manufacturing defect, but to prove the same the Complainant had to led expert opinion or report, which he failed to adduce and in the absence of which it cannot be presumed that there was any defect in the set of shockers at all. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         Per Annexure C-1, on 10.03.2018, the Complainant had purchased Shockers in question from Opposite Party No.2 being the Authorized Distributor of Opposite Party No.1. As per the case of the Complainant, after fitting, during test drive, he found that shockers in question were giving undue noise, thus, he, immediately, asked Opposite Party No.2 for replacement of the same, which was refused by it. Thereafter, the Complainant tried his level best to get his grievance redressed through Opposite Party No.1 by writing an e-mail Annexure C-2, which was duly responded by Opposite Party No.1 through Annexure C-3 and the Complainant was asked to furnish his vehicle number and contact number, which information was duly provided by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure C-4.
8.         The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that the Shockers in question were purchased from Opposite Party No.2, so it has nothing to do with the present Complaint. More so, it has been contended that the Complainant got the Shockers purchased fitted from outside, so there is no obligation on it for the discharge of any kind of services.
9.         On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 had contended that it supplied the genuine set of Shockers, which was supplied by Opposite Party No.1, to the Complainant and hence, issued the invoice. It further has been contended that Opposite Party No.1 who sells the original spare parts in question does not provide any warranty for the same. It has further been contended by Opposite Party No.2 that the manufacturing defect, if any, can be ascertained with the support of some expert opinion, which is not part of the present case.     
10.         Perusal of Annexure C-2 and C-3 reveals that the Complainant immediately after getting aggrieved, communicated with the Manufacturer of the spare parts. It has come on record that the Complainant also got little response from the Opposite Party No.1 regarding providing registration number of the vehicle and his contact number. Annexure C-4 shows that the desired information was supplied by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 for doing the needful. Notwithstanding this, the grievance of the Complainant was not redressed properly at any stage. Even during the proceedings of the case, both the parties are shouldering the responsibility on each other instead of redressing the grievance of the Complainant. The Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.1) who supplied the spare parts to the dealer (Opposite Party No.2) is not owning the responsibility, despite the fact that Opposite Party No.2 has clearly admitted in its written version that it purchased the said spare parts from the Opposite Party No.1 only. Meaning thereby, it was the innocent and gullible Consumer/ Complainant only who suffered between the unnecessary blame games of both the Opposite Parties. Though it was a petty issue, but still the same could not be redressed by both the Opposite Parties, despite the fact that the Complainant informed about the same within a short span of the purchase of the same. Hence, the inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and selling sub-standard product by Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant is definitely deficiency in service on their part and their involvement in unfair trade practice, which in turn certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
11.         In view of the above discussion, the present Consumer Complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1. To refund Rs.5,300/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the defective Shockers;
2. To pay Rs.2,500/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and physical & mental harassment caused to him.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

 

12.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, 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) & (ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.         The Complainant shall return the Shockers in question to the Opposite Parties after the compliance of the order.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/04/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”