| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.374 of 27.9.2018 Decided on: 1.4.2021 Bhinder Parminder Singh son of Pritpal Singh Bhinder aged about 66 years, resident of House No.4220, Urban Estate, Phase-2, Patiala 147001. …………...Complainant Versus - Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Old Palam, Gurgaon Road, Gurugram(Haryana)-122015 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
- Atelier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. near Casaba Resort,Rajpura Road, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.M.L.Sharma, counsel for complainant. Sh.J.K.Garg, counsel for OP No.1. Opposite party No.2 ex-parte. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Bhinder Parminder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased a motor car make Maruti Baleno Zeta bearing engine No.D13A-3243838, chassis No. MA3EWB62SJB416787, manufactured by OP No.1 vide invoice dated 15.2.2018 from Ekansh Wheels, State Highway No.5 Vill. Tepla, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt, the authorized dealer of OP No.1.The complainant selected OP No.2 as his preferred workshop of dealer .The complainant also got the same insured and registered with Registering Authority, Patiala on 23.3.2018 vide registration No.PB11CM0149.
- It is averred that the after one month of purchase, the said car started giving problem of gear and different types of noises and the complainant handed over the car to OP No.2 on 11.9.2018.The OP No.2 issued job card dated 9.9.2018 and promised the delivery of the same by 6PM on the same date but it could not remove the defect and extended the delivery time to 20.9.2018. On 11.9.2018 service estimate was handed over by OP No.2. It is also told by OP No.2 that replacement of car parts take a long time as the same are not available. The complainant insisted the OPs for the replacement of the car as it was very difficult for the complainant to do his daily routine work but the OPs refused to replace the car as a result of which the complainant has to purchase a new car Toyota Etios for Rs.8,23,700/- in the name of his group M/s Datar Security Services Group. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which the complainant suffered from mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to replace the defective car with new one or to refund the cost of car Rs.7,84,784/-, to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also to pay Rs.11000/-as costs of litigation.
Reply/Written statement - Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written statement while OP No.2 did not come present and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2018.
- In the written reply file by OP No.1 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complaint is an afterthought and has been filed with an ulterior motive. It is submitted that the vehicle has always been attended as per the terms and conditions of warranty. It is further submitted that when the problem of gear box was reported on 9.9.2018, the vehicle has been plied for 34367 kms. The vehicle was inspected and necessary repairs/replacements were carried out on free of cost basis as per the terms and conditions of warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant which is evident from satisfaction note dated 30.10.2018 duly signed by the complainant. The vehicle was running perfect OK and roadworthy condition. It is further submitted that the OP is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period of two years or 40,000kms from the date of sale.
- In parawise reply, it is submitted that the OP sells its products to its authorized dealers and the relationship between the OP and the dealer is that of Principal to Principal basis. It is denied that the vehicle in question started giving problem of gear and different type of noises after a month of purchase. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of Hira Automobiles Ltd. Patiala on 21.2.2018 for 1st free inspection service at 1307 kms. and on 8.4.2018 for 3rd free inspection service at 9661 kms. and on both these occasions no problem of any kind was reported.
- It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP No.2 on 9.9.2018 and noise from rear and gear box were reported. After inspection necessary repairs / replacements were carried out free of cost and the vehicle was in perfect OK and roadworthy condition and was delivered to the complainant on 3.10.2018 and was delivered to the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no act of omission or commission on the part of OP causing any loss or harassment to the complainant and also there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and has closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Kamaljeet Malhotra,Territory Service Manager of OP No.1 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
-
- Both the parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a motor car from Ambala Cantt and he opted OP No.2 as his preferred workshop. The ld. counsel further argued that after purchase of one month the car started giving problems and gear was changed. The ld. counsel further argued that the car was given to OP No.2 on 11.9.2018 and it took 13 days to change the gear. The ld. counsel further argued in these 13 days his business suffered and it was deficiency of service. So he is entitled to compensation of 3lacs as defective car was given. So the new car be given to him or to refund the amount and also to pay compensation of Rs.3lacs.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the gear box was totally changed by OP No.2.The ld. counsel further argued that it was OP No.2 to tell that how he took long time in repairing the car. The ld. counsel has relied upon the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo vaz and anr. Civil Appeal no.574 of 2021(arising out of SLP(C) No.10220 of 2020, decided on February 18,2021, in which it has been held that Manufacturer is not liable.
- To prove the case, complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is receipt of Eakansh Wheels vide which the car was purchased for Rs.7,84,283.63 on 15.2.2018,Ex.C2 is Insurance policy, Ex.C3 is certificate of registration, Ex.C4 is job card, Ex.C5 is another job card dated 11.9.2018/service estimate, Ex.C6 is warranty policy,Ex.C7 is bill of Pioneer Toyota vide which service Group purchased Toyota Etios car.
- On the other hand Kamaljit Malhotra has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA on behalf of the OP and he has deposed as per the written statement,Ex.OP1 is dealership agreement,Ex.OP2 is warranty policy,Ex.OP3 is job card,Ex.OP5 is service estimate dated 11.9.2018,Ex.OP6 is workshop issue note dated 24.9.2018.Ex.OP4 is important document issued by OP No.2 in which gear box was changed under warranty. It is dated 3.10.2018 when the possession of the car was taken back and in the feedback excellent is mentioned. So it is clear that the complainant was fully satisfied as gear box was overhauled and was changed and was duly signed by the complainant and he has given 10 marks and has mentioned service is excellent. So it is clear that gear box was changed by OP No.2 and the complainant was fully satisfied with the service given by OP No.2.As such now when the gear box was changed and the car was free from defect so now the complainant cannot give a new car.
- Coming to the compensation, as long time was taken by OP No.2 in repairing the car and the car was given to them on 11.9.2018 and it was taken back on 3.10.2018. As per Ex.OP4 22 days were taken in repair. 22 days is long time when only gear box was to be changed.
- In view of the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo vaz and anr. Civil Appeal no.574 of 2021(arising out of SLP(C) No.10220 of 2020, decided on February 18,2021 (supra) , it is held that manufacturer is not responsible. So keeping in view that law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the OP No.1 is not responsible and it is OP No.2 who has taken long time in repairing the gear box. Accordingly the complaint stands partly allowed and the complainant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and for taking long time in repairing the gear box and also Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation alongwith interest @6% per annum from 3.10.2018 till actual payment. Compliance of the order be made by the OP No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:1.4.2021 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President | |
