DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 324 of 2017
Date of Institution : 3.10.2017
Date of Decision : 12.02.2019
Dr Rajiv Manhas aged about 41 years s/o Madan Lal, r/o Kothi No. 84, G G S Medical College Complex, Faridkot.
.....Complainant
Versus
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Plot No. 1, Phase-III-A, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon.
- Pankaj Motors, through its authorized signatory, Talwandi-Kotkapura Bye-Pass, Faridkot, now at present G T Road, Moga.
.......OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for Complainant,
Sh Narinder Kumar, Ld Counsel for OP-2,
OP-1 Exparte.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal , President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for selling defective car and for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs.6 lacs for inbuilt defect of air bags in car and for also directing Ops to pay Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
Complaint No. - 324 of 2017
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased from OP-2 one new Swift Dezire ZDI-IV on 15.04.2011 and got hypothecated the same from State Bank of Patiala, Faridkot for Rs.7,34,222/-. He also got insured the said car and got the same registered with District Transport Office, Faridkot and have RC No. PB-04P-5100. It is pertinent to mention that complainant was concerned more about the safety of his own and his family and therefore, on assurance of OPs, complainant agreed to purchase the New Maruti Dezire ZDI-IV with airbags and paid Rs. 2 lacs over and above to purchase the said car. On 26.04.2017, when complainant was travelling alongwith his parents in said car, their car met with an accident due to negligence of other vehicle. At that time, all of them were wearing seat belts, but they were astonished to note that safety airbags and other safety measures did not work. Airbags did not open and function and due to this complainant and his mother suffered injuries for which they had to underwent treatment. Complainant sent e-mail to General Manager of OP-1. Complainant got repaired his car from Stan Autos Pvt ltd Sidhu Tower Circular Road, Kapurthala and paid an amount of Rs.1,15,647/-to them for repair purpose but Insurance Company paid only Rs.69,815/-to complainant through RTGS. It is submitted that had the airbags worked properly, complainant and his mother would not have suffered injuries. Complainant made many requests to OPs, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs, but that also bore no fruit and all this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused much inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to accept the present complaint and give the relief sought and for further directing Ops to pay Rs
Complaint No. - 324 of 2017
2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.10.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 Notice containing copy of complaint and related documents was sent to OP-1 through registered cover, but same has been received back undelivered. Statutory period of 30 days expired. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit therefore, it is presumed that notice might have been served. On date fixed, case was called out for several times, but till 4.00 pm OP-1 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel. Therefore, vide order dated 8.12.2017, OP-1 was proceeded as exparte.
5 On receipt of the notice, OP-2 filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that record regarding sale and purchase of Moga and Faridkot dealership was stored at Moga and same was burnt in a fire broken out in the showroom at Moga in June 2015 and now, they have no record regarding purchase of said vehicle. It is averred that complainant purchased the said vehicle on his own will and was not advised by answering OP to purchase the same. It is further denied that complainant paid Rs 2 lacs more to purchase the said car. There is no defect in car and moreover, same is manufactured by OP-1 and OP-2 is only a dealer and even answering OP has closed the business under the name of Pankaj Motors in 2013-2014. OP-2 asserted that car of complainant is 6 years old and is not covered under the warranty conditions as warranty period for same has already been
Complaint No. - 324 of 2017
expired much prior to alleged accident. They have never supplied any defective car to complainant and allegations regarding alleged defect are totally wrong. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering OP.
6 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and C-12 and then, closed the evidence.
7 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dwaraka Nath Bansal, authorized signatory of OP-2 as Ex OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2
8 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.
9 Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased one new Swift Dezire from OP-2 and got hypothecated the same from State Bank of Patiala, Faridkot for Rs.7,34,222/-. He also got insured the said car and got the same registered with District Transport Office, Faridkot. On assurance of OPs, complainant purchased the New Maruti Dezire ZDI-IV with airbags and paid Rs. 2 lacs more to purchase the said car. On 26.04.2017, when complainant was travelling alongwith his parents in said car, their car met with an
Complaint No. - 324 of 2017
accident due to negligence of other vehicle. At that time, all of them were wearing seat belts, but they were astonished to note that safety airbags and other safety measures did not work. Airbags did not open and function and due to this complainant and his mother suffered injuries for which they had to underwent treatment. Complainant sent e-mail to General Manager of OP-1 and got repaired his car from Stan Autos Pvt ltd Kapurthala and paid an amount of Rs.1,15,647/-to them for repair purpose but Insurance Company paid only Rs.69,815/-to complainant through RTGS. It is submitted that had the airbags worked properly, complainant and his mother would not have suffered injuries. Complainant made many requests to OPs to make remaining payment, but all in vain. Legal notice issued to OPs, also bore no fruit and all this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. It is further argued that all this caused much inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant and due to this complainant has prayed for accepting present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.
10 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that record regarding sale and purchase of Moga and Faridkot dealership was stored at Moga and same was burnt in a fire broken out in the showroom at Moga in June 2015 and now, they have no record regarding purchase of said vehicle. It is further averred that complainant purchased the said vehicle on his own will and was not advised by OP-2 to purchase the same. It is totally denied that complainant paid Rs 2 lacs more to purchase the said car and asserted that there is no defect in car and moreover, same is manufactured by OP-1 and OP-2 is only a dealer and
Complaint No. - 324 of 2017
even now OP-2 has closed the business under the name of Pankaj Motors in 2013-2014. It is further argued by ld counsel for OP-2 that car of complainant is 6 years old and is not covered under the warranty conditions as warranty period for car expired much prior to alleged accident. They have never supplied any defective car to complainant and allegations regarding alleged defect are totally wrong. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
11 From the careful perusal of record, evidence placed on file and after going through the arguments advanced by respective parties, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that he purchased the car in question from OP-2 and at the time of purchase, he paid Rs.2 lacs more for obtaining car having air bags for safety purpose but when complainant met with an accident, air bags of said car did not open and no safety purpose was solved by them and both complainant and his mother suffered several injuries. Complainant alleged that they received injuries because of the reason that safety air bags did not do function for which they were meant. Non functioning of air bags at the time of accident has caused physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss to complainant and has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand, plea taken by OP-2 is that record regarding sale-purchase of Moga and Faridkot dealership was stored at Moga and it was burnt in a fire broken out in the showroom at Moga in June 2015 and now, they have no record regarding purchase of said vehicle. OP-2 stressed that complainant purchased the said vehicle on his own will and was not advised by OP-2 to purchase the same and also denied that complainant paid Rs 2 lacs more to purchase the said car and asserted that there is no defect in car. OP-2 contended that car in question is manufactured by OP-1 and OP-2 is only a dealer
Complaint No. - 324 of 2017
and even now OP-2 has closed the business under the name of Pankaj Motors in 2013-2014. As per OP-2 that car of complainant is 6 years old and is not covered under the warranty conditions as warranty period for car expired much prior to alleged accident. OP-2 have denied any deficiency in service on their part and asserted that they never supplied any defective car to complainant and allegations regarding alleged defect are also wrong.
12 Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his grievance and this point is further clarified from the careful perusal of legal notice dated 2.06.2017 sent by complainant to OPs. Ex C-8 is the copy of e-mail dated 30.04.2017sent by complainant to OPs that clearly reveals the fact that there was some technical fault in the vehicle sold by OPs to complainant. As per this document, it is clear that safety measures of the said vehicle did not work at the time of accident and complainant had to suffer due to defective piece sold by OPs and Ex C-9 is the reply received by complainant in response to his e-mail dt 30.04.2017 wherein OPs regretted for the inconvenience caused to him. Ex C-10 and 11also depict the correspondence occurred between complainant and OPs. Thus, there is no doubt that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. If air bags in said car functioned properly at the time of accident, then, complainant would not have received injuries in that accident. There is no doubt that a person purchases a vehicle having air bags and other safety measures by paying extra amount for the same for to ensure the safety for himself and his family during the travel, then, if after paying excess money, he did not get required safety, then, it is deficiency in service on the part of manufacturer of the vehicle i.e OP-1 in the present case. Moreover, OP-2 is mere dealer of OP-1 and sold the vehicle as received by them from OP-1 to customers and all the guarantee and warrantee and
Complaint No. - 324 of 2017
assurance regarding safety of the vehicle is to be given by the manufacturer OP-1 and there is no role of OP-2 in the same. As such, we have found no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.
13 In the light of above discussion and in view of record placed on record and pleadings of the parties and statements of complainant and OP-2, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP-1 to pay Rs.2 lacs on account of harassment damage and mental agony and injuries suffered by complainant due to non functioning of air bags at the time of accident and Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum:
Dated: 12.02.2019
Member President
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
