District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 121/2022.
Date of Institution:03.03.2022.
Date of Order:01.08.2023.
Sh. Surjeet Singh S/o Shri Ram Kumar R/o House No. 539, Village Badrola P.O.Tigaon, Faridabad Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Through its authorized person having regd. Plant at plot No.1 Phase 3A IMT, Manesar, Gurugram Haryana – 122501.
2. Maruti Suzuki Arena (Autonation) through its Authorised person having regd. Unit at 15/3, Mathura Road, HBH Colony, Sector-28, Faridabad, Haryana 121003.
3. Maruti Suzuki Services (Autonation) through its authorized person having regd. Unit at Plot No.12, main bypass road, Sector-9, Faridabad-121006.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Sarabjeet Sardhana, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Anshul Goyal, counsel for opposite parties Nos.2 & 3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the customer of opposite party company from a long time The complainant had previously used two cars of opposite party brand since 2007 and on the basis of the trust built in complainant’s mind on opposite party, complainant purchased the new car i.e. Swift VXI registration No. HR51BX1717 in the month of May 2019 from the opposite party No.2 and after purchasing of the said vehicle, complainant started servicing of the said vehicle from the opposite party No.3 and till today servicing of the said vehicle was done by the opposite party No.3 time to time. Since the very beginning the said vehicle started crating troubling in day to day life style like noise in the front door glasses of both the side while scrolling up and down rusting/corrosion at the body parts and uneven noises in all body and the engine fo the said vehicle and every time when complainant gave their vehicle for services to opposite party No.3, complainant regularly complaints about these problems and opposite party always assured complainant that opposite party company would fixed up the problem this time but all their assurance was just to grab the money from complainant’s pocket. At the time of service when complainant strongly complaints to the opposite party No.3 about all these problem then opposite party told complainant that opposite party had sent the mail to the higher official of company and assured complainant that opposite party would definitely take a appropriate step to resolve the problem but no fruitful step had not been taken till today about complainant’s complaints. Complainant had sent many complaints through mail time to time but till today complainant did not get any satisfactory replied from opposite party side. Being an Advocate, complainant maintained reputation in the society and his time was very much precious and by opposite parties such act and conduct respondents make complainant’s life worst and so much stress full and also opposite parties tortured complaint in the term of financial as well as mental at this stage complainant found himself totally robed by opposite parties company as opposite parties delivered complainant a defected piece that make his life hell. The complainant sent legal notice dated 23.11.2021to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) replace the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund the money of the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its purchasing of said vehicle to till realization of the amount.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant has alleged that since the day of purchase of the vehicle there was concern of noise while glasses of both doors went up and down rusting/corrosion at body parts and uneven noise in body and engine of the vehicle. It had further been alleged that the concern was reported whenever the vehicle was sent for service to workshop-p of opposite party NO.3 but the same could not be resolved. It was submitted that the complainant had concocted a false and frivolous story to obtain undue gains from the answering opposite party. It was submitted that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of opposite party No.3 on 04.06.2019 at 1252 kms, on 11.09.2019 at 5228 kms and on 31.01.2020 at 12370 kms for Ist, 2nd and 3rd inspection service respectively. But any concern elated to noise in doors or rusting or noise from engine and vehicle was not reported by the complainant. It clearly indicates that the concern was not present since purchase as alleged and the complainant had concocted a false and frivolous story to obtain undue gains from the answering opposite party. It was submitted that the alleged concern of rusting and noise had never been reported to any authorized workshop of the answering opposite party. The complainant in a futile attempt had stated these facts for the first time in the legal notice dated 23.11.2021. However, the vehicle had not been sent to any authorized workshop post this legal notice which clearly indicates the malafide nature of the complaint. It was further submitted that insignificant defects which did not affect the function of the vehicle including without limitation, sound, vibration and fluid clause 4(n) of the warranty booklet. The complainant had failed to place any material evidence on record to substantiate his claim. It was submitted that the vehicle in question had always been attended as per the terms and conditions of warranty. The complainant had been making demands and taking the shelter of this Hon’ble Forum and trying to put undue pressure on his opposite party. The present complaint had been filed without any cause of action against the answering opposite party. It was submitted that the obligation of answering opposite party under the warranty, which was part and parcel of the sale contract, was specific as set out in the warranty policy (clause 3) as enumerated on the owner’s manual and booklet. It was submitted that the vehicle in question had always been attended as per terms and conditions of warranty and there was no defect or deficiency in services on the part of the answering opposite party. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable in any manner whatsoever, because of opposite party NO.2 was the dealer of opposite party No.1 and as per prayer clause of the complaint, the complainant was asking for the replacement of the car in question, alongwith other cost and compensation, which was not possible for both the parties and the rusting problem in the door, was not covered under the extended warranty, because it had occurred due to some external factors, as directed by the manufacturer, on the basis of mail dated 9.11.2021 and this fact was also within the knowledge of the complainant, hence this objection and rusting problem should be got done on payment basis with some discount, as a gesture of good will, in order to keep the customers relations alive, although the complainant had no case. The complaint was not covered under the definition of a consumer because the car was purchase under hire purchase agreement with Axis Bank, as financer, as per facts clear from the RC book and the financer was the real owner of the car in question till the entire payment of loan was not repaid as per judgement of the N.C. and Hr. Comm. PKL so the complainant was not a Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection act. 2019.
The car in question was properly attended lastly on 20.08.2021 at covering 32786 km. and no rusting matter was reported and the question of door noise was concerned every customer likewise the complainant in hand was bound get it checked timely due to normal use and occupation, so there was no question of any deficiency in services or harassment, replacement of the car as all alleged by the complainant, hence this objection.. Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Maruti Suzuki India Limited & Ors. with the prayer to: a) replace the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund the money of the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its purchasing of said vehicle to till realization of the amount. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Surjeet Singh, Ex.C-1 – RC, Ex.C-2 – insurance policy,, Ex.C-3 to 7 emails, Ex.C-8 – legal notice, Ex.C-9 to 11 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-12 & 13 photos.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex,RW1/A – affidavit of Abhishek Chatoopadhyay, working ofr Maruti Suzuki India Limited (formerly known as Maruti Udyog Limited) having its registered office at Plot NO.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi,Annx.R-1/1 – dealership agreement, Annexure R-1/2 – warranty policy.
Shri Anshul Goyal, counsel for opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 has made a statement that the written statement already filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos.2 & 3, the same may be read as evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 and closed the same. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 has been closed vide order dated 04.07.2023.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the new car i.e. Swift VXI registration No. HR51BX1717 in the month of May 2019 from the opposite party No.2. Since the very beginning the said vehicle started creating troubling in day to day life style like noise in the front door glasses of both the side while scrolling up and down rusting/corrosion at the body parts and uneven noises in all body and the engine for the said vehicle. The complainant lodged several complaints to opposite parties through emails dated 27.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 10.11.2021, & 10.11.2021 in this regard vide Ex.C3 to C7.
8. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the warranty is only for the engine and other machinery parts not for the body parts. Due to defective paints, the vehicle in question got rusted and the complainant has paid huge amount for his car in question, In the interest of justice, the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties, jointly & severally, to replace the defective rusted body parts/corrosion at the body parts of the vehicle in question. As per the prayer of the complainant, the vehicle in question can’t be replaced without the expert opinion or manufacturing defect. Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 can recover the above said amount from opposite party No.1 as opposite party is the manufacturer and opposite party No.2 is the dealer of opposite party No.1. They have agreement principal to principal. Opposite party No.2 can recover from opposite party No.1 as per their principal to principal agreement. There are no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 01.08.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
