CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/256/11

          Date of Institution:-    03.08.2011

          Order Reserved on:- 20.05.2024

                 Date of Decision:-      14.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr ArjunAnand,

Son of Mr.VivekAnand,

R/o DD-26, Kalkaji,

New Delhi     

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited

Nelson Mandela Road,

VasantKunj, New Delhi – 110070

2. M/s Apra Auto (India)Pvt. Ltd.

K-804/2, MahipalPur,

VasantKunj Road,

New Delhi - 110037

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatOP-1 is manufacturer of cars under the brand name “Maruti Suzuki” and OP-2 is dealer of OP-1. The OP-1 has given vide publicity to “Ritz Vdi Car” which got his attention so he approached OP-2 on 31.08.2009 to purchase the said car. It was told to him that car is fitted by temper proof security system and it is not possible to steal the car. This car would be a good option. It was explained to him that i-CATS in the car works digitallyencrypted codes hence temper code so engine would get immobilize if anyone tries to take away the car. He purchased Ritz Vdi car bearing registration no.DL9CL5044 on 31.08.2009 from OP-2 which was comprehensively insured. On 01.07.2010, at 10 PM he has parked his car outside the residence DD-33 Kalkaji of his grandmother and found the same missing in the morning of 02.07.2010. A written complaint was given to PS, Kalkaji, Delhi which led to registration of FIR no.312/10 PS, Kalkaji, Delhi. The tall claims of security system installed in the car made by OPs were a complete sham as it failed to check the unauthorized removal of car. He would not have purchased the car in case he was aware that system is fool proof. He has suffered losses due to false claim made by OPs. The insurance company has settled the claim for Rs.4,73,550/- against claim of Rs.5,31,833/-. The price of car was revised and he further suffered a losses of Rs.40,000/- on this score. He has undergone mental agony due to the theft of car. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 has filed the reply to the effect that vehicle in question was FCOK and PDI certified vehicle which has undergone three free inspection services on 20.09.2009, 24.12.2009 and 04.04.2010. The OP cannot be held responsible for the act of omission and commission on the part of complainant. The OP is neither necessary nor Performa party. The allegations required detailed investigation and evidence which is beyond the purview of this Commission. The complainant has failed to place any material to substantiate the claim of compensation. The vehicles manufactured by OP-1 are approved by ARAI of Government of India. The vehicle undergoes quality stringent checks at every level. The ISO/TSI6949 is the development of a quality management system which provides continuous improvement and defect prevention. The car in question is bestselling model of OP-1 across the globe. The complainant has distorted the facts. The car was purchased from OP-2 so there was no privity of contract with OP-1. The relationshipwith OP-1 in on Principal to Principal basis. It is denied that vehicle was fitted with temper proof security system or it is impossible to steal the vehicle. The immobilizer system is designed to prevent vehicle theft by electronic disabling the engine start system. No security system is temper proof. The problem of car theft can be reduced. The immobilizer system of the digital encrypted code is subject to certain limitations. The system is designed to prevent the vehicle theft and not to rule out the theft. The malfunctioning indicator light will glow in the cluster instrumental panel if something is wrong with the key or immobilizer system. No such defect was ever pointed out by the complainant at the time of service. There is no act of omission or commission on the part of OP and complaint has found ill-founded allegations.

3. OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that complaint is nothing but an attempt to pressurize OP-2 to give compensation and to cover up his own wrong and negligence. OP-1 is the manufacturer of the car in question. The complainant has purchased the car from OP-2. The car was fitted with i-CATS which is temper proof security system with some limitation but at the same time user has to be careful about the security of the car. The qualities of the car were highlighted but it was never told that it is with complete temper proof security system. There is nothing in the complainant that there was any defect in the system. The complainant has taken the claim from the insurance which has not been challenged by him. No legal notice has been received.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statements.

5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainanthas filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint.

7. The OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Thakur Kiran Singh, in evidencewherein he has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Annexure-R1 to R7.

8. TheOP-2 has filed the affidavit of Sh.Om PrakashVadhwa, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.RW1/1 to 1/3.

9. No one has turned up to address the arguments so the case was reserved for orders by seeing that it pertains to year 2011.

10. It is clear from the material on record that complainant has purchased Ritz Vdi car from OP-2 being manufactured by OP-1 which was fitted with i-CATS temper proof security system.

11. On the intervening night of 01/02.07.2010 the vehicle in question was stolen from outside the house of his grandmother qua which FIR no.312/10 PS, Kalkaji was registered.

12. The question is whether there was defect in the i-Cat security system which led to the theft of car. The complainant has taken the car for services at OP-2 which is apparent from job cards R-1/5 to 7. The job cards nowhere show that there was defect in the ignition system or security system of the car. It is not case of the complainant that the malfunctioning indicator light hasglown in the cluster instrumental panel as something was wrong with the key or immobilizer system meaning thereby that security system was working in the perfect order.

13. Keyless car system is a convenient mode but it is also vulnerable to the theft. On the advent of new technology, the offenders look at the ways of going around it. The offenders have various methods of getting into the keyless car entry system. The offenders have means to manipulate the security system of the car or to disable the alarm or to start the engine. This does not mean that the security system in the car is not working. The system is provided in the car to prevent the theft but it cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of the theft of car. The owner has to take additional means for the security of car. To our mind, the theft of the car in no way suggests that the i-CAT security system in a car was defective or was installed to rule out the possibility of theft. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 14.11.2024.