Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/47

Kunal Attri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti suzuki India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Karnish Gupta Adv.

11 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  47 dated 31.01.2020.                               Date of decision: 11.10.2024. 

 

Kunal Attri aged about 29 years son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar Attri, resident of House No.261, Street No.6, Link Road, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab, India                                                                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Through Its Chairman and CEO/MD
2. Mr. R.C Bhargava, Chairman, Maruti Suzuki India Limited
3. Mr. Kenichi Ayukawa, MD & CEO, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, All C/O. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
4. Mr. Rohit Arora, Regional Head Punjab, Maruti Suzuki India Limited C/O. SCO-39-40 Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, 160008, 0172-2780056
5. Area Head Ludhiana, Maruti Suzuki India Limited C/O. SCO 16-17,4th Floor, Fortune Chambers, Pakhowal Road, Feroz Gandhi Market Ludhiana, 141001
6. Gulzar Motors Pvt Limited, Through Its Directors
7. Mr.Harkirat Singh, Wholetime Director, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited,
8. Mr.Gurcharan Singh Baweja, Director, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited Managing
9. Mr.Surinderpal Singh, Director, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited
10.  Mr.Gurkirat Singh, Director, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited
11. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh @Sukhi General Manager Sales, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited
12.  Mr. Vicky Marwaha, Salesman Team Leader, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited
13. Mr. Komal Bhagat, Saleman /Assistant, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited
14.  PDI Head, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited
15. Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bawa, Vice President, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited
16.  Gate Pass Clerk, Gulzar Motors Pvt. Limited; All C/O. Grand Trunk Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana.

……Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 & 14 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                       :         Sh. Karnish Gupta, Advocate

For OP1 to OP3                       :         Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate.

For OP4 to OP7, OP9 to OP11

and OP13 to OP16                            :         Exparte.

For OP8, OP12 and OP15       :         Sh. V.B. Handa and Sh. Gaurav Anand,                                  Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 05.11.2019, the complainant approached OP6 to OP13, who are the authorized dealers and employees (agents and sub-agents) of OP1 to OP3, for exchange of his old car Ford Figo No.PB-10-DU-7314 from Maruti True Value (Gulzar Motors). The booking of Maruti Suzuki Swift car was made on06.11.2019 by adjusting the exchange value of old car with new car. OP6 conveyed the complainant that the specific colour in the vehicle model requested by him is not available and the same will be notified to him  as and when available after booking formalities are done but no receipt was provided by the OPs as the value of car will be treated as booking amount. OP6 also told the complainant that OP1 will deliver the vehicle within one week. The complainant stated that he was notified on 21.11.2019 by OP12 that the vehicle has arrived at dealer end/point and is within custody of OP6 and its employees i.e. OP7 to OP16. Upon receiving such information, the complainant agreed to purchase the vehicle and arranged funds for the same. The complainant, OP6 as well as OP12 & 13 on 29.11.2019 at about 02.30 PM and before his arrival intimated OP12 Mr. Vicky Marwaha through whatsapp message on his mobile No.9855517113, which he replied at 11.08 AM confirming his visit as “Ok sir” and also at 1.00 PM intimated the complainant regarding clearance of his loan amount. On his arrival to the dealer i.e. OP6 the complainant was addressed by OP12 and OP13 and was kept waiting for more than 3 hours and during this period the complainant requested them to see as if the vehicle is ready for delivery and dispatch but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Even the estimate time 2 hours for delivery was given to the complainant but the vehicle was not delivered till 06.15 PM. Further the complainant was taken to godown/workshop at about 05.45 PM to see the vehicle but there was not proper lightening and the same was in wet condition due to which the complainant could not see the vehicle properly and believing the assurance of OP12 and OP13 accepted the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXI AMT of Silver colour bearing registration No.PB-10-HA-0212 whereas the manufacturing year was not mentioned on the bills of OP6.

                   The complainant further stated that OP6 issued insurance through Iffco Tokyo and even the name of bank was wrongly mentioned as Bank of Baroda in place of Bank of India. According to the complainant, the vehicle was delivered by OP6 to OP16 to him at about 06.20 PM knowing fully well that due to non-availability of sunlight the vehicle could not be examined by him. Even the vehicle was delivered at a different location other than the specific delivery area and the delay of delivery was not explained. The complainant and his family was compelled to wait for a long time. Moreover, when he showed the vehicle to his family members after reaching at home, the complainant saw the repaired/faulty vehicle and even the key(s) were scratched regarding which intimation through photographs on whatsapp number of OP12 was sent. The complainant also clicked photographs at the time of delivery of the vehicle in the premises of OP6 in which the defect is clearly visible. Further he clicked the photographs of vehicle on next day morning and sent the same to OP12 who replied and instructed the complainant to visit OP6 to resolve the matter.

                   The complainant further stated that on 30.11.2019, he visited OP6 to OP16 at about 02.30 PM along with the vehicle where he was harassed, humiliated and made to run from pillar to another pillar and thereafter, he got phone number of OP4 Mr. Rohit Arora, Regional Head and explained him the situation who gave instructions to OP11 to resolve the matter. The complainant again received back call from OP4 who instructed him to take the car back to his home and to come back on Monday i.e. on 02.12.2019 where the team of OP1 will be present with which the complaint has been forwarded. On 30.11.2019, the complainant sent an Email to OP1 regarding his atrocities which was replied on 01.12.2019 by asking him for copy of invoice bill, which the complainant sent to OP1. However, when on 02.12.2019, the complaint visited OP6 at about 10.00 AM, no team of OP1 was present. However, OP15 inspected the vehicle and got compounded and Teflon coating on the vehicle and but the other defects were not corrected. Even OP15 told that he cannot do anything else on the vehicle otherwise it will damage the paint of the vehicle and even assured the complainant that team of OP1 will  visit within one or two days at OP6 and thereafter, final decision will be taken. However, OP11, OP12, OP13 and OP15 lingered on the matter and then OP12 told the complainant to come on 05.12.2019 at 04.00 PM. On 05.12.2019, OP6 again made the complainant to wait for 1 hour and thereafter, the complainant approached OP12 and OP5 who inspected the vehicle and conveyed about the material defects in the vehicle and told the area head to replace the vehicle immediately. The complainant was further told that after a meeting, the decision will be made out but till date no intimation was made and even OP6 to OP15 stopped taking his calls and blocked his phone number.

                   The complainant further stated that on 10.12.2019, he requested OP12 via text message on whatsapp to give Form No.21 and 22 related to said vehicle but he denied to supply the said documents. The complainant sent email to OP1 and on 10.12.2019, the complainant made a complaint on toll free number of OP1, which is still pending. Further the complainant moved an application to RTA on 11.12.2019  being marked to Kiranjeet Kaur which was being numbered on 18.12.2019 i.e. bearing No.1110 dated 11.12.2019 and she denied that she had not received any copy of form No.21 and 22 and denied to prepare any report in the absence of the record. According to the complainant, the amount of said car in question as fixed and as told by OP12 to him was Rs.7,80,000/-. The bank issued loan amount of Rs.6,02,856/- and old car make Ford Figo was sold to OP6 to the tune of Rs.1,83,000/-. Bank of India debited Rs.2856/- from his bank account. In this way the amount of Rs.5856/- is pending towards OP6 for which the complainant requested OP6 and OP12 many times to give the said amount back but they ignored his request. The complainant sent legal notice dated 14.12.2019 to the OPs but no reply was received.   The complainant claimed to have suffered mental agony, harassment, mental trauma etc. due to act and conduct of the OPs. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to replace the faulty/defected/altered/repaired product i.e. vehicle in question immediately and to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/-  along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- besides paying Rs.5856/- to the complainant.

2.                Initially all the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.10.2020. Thereafter, Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate on behalf of OP1 to OP3 filed application for permission to join proceedings, which was allowed vide order dated 14.10.2020.

                    OP1 to OP3 filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; the complainant being not their Consumer; mis-joinder of party; the complainant has manipulated the facts; lack of cause of action etc. OP1 to OP3 stated that the complainant has wrongly impleaded them as party. The complainant purchased the vehicle from OP6 and the entire sale related transaction took place between the complainant and OP6. Moreover, they were never a party to the sale transaction and as such, no liability can be attributed to them. Even there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant. The complainant has wrongly stated that he was kept waiting and vehicle was delivered to him on 06.20 PM and due to bad light he could not inspect the vehicle properly. However, as per record of gate pass for the delivery of vehicle was issued at 03.34 PM meaning thereby the vehicle was ready for delivery at 03.34 PM after completing all the formalities. OP1 to OP3 further stated that the vehicle is delivered to the purchasers after pre-delivery inspection (‘PDI’) checkup and in the present case, after taking delivery of the vehicle on 29.11.2019, the complainant took the vehicle to outside auto outlet for alloy fitment. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant without alloy wheels whereas when the complainant reported the vehicle with alleged complaint of scratch marks, the vehicle was found fitted with alloy wheels which shows that the scratch marks, if any occurred in the vehicle after delivery from dealership. The complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service against OP1 to OP3.

                   On merits, OP1 to OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP1 to OP3 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Sh. V.B. Handa, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of OP8, OP12 and OP15 along with affidavit for setting aside exparte order dated 01.10.2020. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.07.2021 by permitting them to join the proceedings from the stage the case was pending at the time of filing the application.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C14 and Ex. C3A to Ex. C3N, Ex. C7/A to Ex. C7/J, Ex. C8/A to Ex. 8/C, Ex. C13/A to Ex. C13/P and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 to OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sh. Vismit Varshney, Assistant Manager at Marutii Suzuki India Limited office at Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana along with documents R1 to Ex. R4 and closed the evidence.

                   The counsel for OP6, OP8, OP12 and OP15 tendered affidavit Ex. RA/3 of Sh. Gurcharan Singh Baweja, Managing Director of Gulzar Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana with reference to written reply they took preliminary objections stating that the complaint is not maintainable; concealment the material facts etc. the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant by OP6 after the complainant had satisfied himself by examining the same and after pre delivery inspection was thoroughly conducted.

                   On merits, OP6, OP8, OP12 and OP15 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP6, OP8, OP12 and OP15 averred that the complainant booked the Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXI AMT of Silver colour with OP6. The complainant never exchanged his old car No.PB-10-DU-7314 with them rather he had sold to Maruti True Value another company. The complainant has wrongly arrayed their many employees as party whereas, in general practice, a customer is dealt with by one employee of the dealership. Even the complainant was informed by OP12 that the car has reached the dealership and that he can come on 29.11.2019 for delivery of the same. And on his instructions and after examining and approval of the car, the same was ordered to be made ready for delivery by doing washing etc and pre delivery inspection. In fact, only after the car was ready and to the full satisfaction of the complainant, he gave his approval for delivery of the same. The car was delivered to the complainant at the place where normally new cars are delivered to the purchasers. The complainant has concocted the story that there were no lights or that the vehicle was repaired as faulty one. No assurance by OP12 and OP15 or other employees of OP6 were given to the complainant. The photographs clicked by the complainant are not of the day of delivery rather these are of some later days. The OPs further stated that the complainant after taking the delivery of the vehicle from OP6 took the same to some workshop/showroom and got affixed alloy wheels to the tyres of the car as no alloy wheels are there on the new car manufactured by OP1. Further any defect regarding starched can be occurred while fixing alloy wheels. Further the scratched were removed at the request of the complainant by applying compound and Teflon coating and then he took back the vehicle. It is the complainant who threatened the OPs either to pay him a huge amount or to repalce the car otherwise he will move various complaints against them. According to the OPs, the registration certificate was handed over to the complainant on 10.02.2021 in the chamber of their counsel and even before that they requested the complainant to collect the registration certificate but he refused to do so. Even they have handed over cheque of Rs.7024/ being Rs.5856/- to the complainant as alleged excess payment and interest on the said amount. OP6, OP8, OP12 and OP15 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                   Sh. Gurcharan Singh Baweja, Managing Director also tendered documents Ex. R1/1 to Ex. R1/3 and closed the evidence.          

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by the parties.

7.                 OP1, a body corporate, engaged in manufacturing/marketing, sale and services in the motor vehicles of various models. OP6 is the authorized dealer of OP1 for sale and repair of the vehicles manufactured by OP1 and as such, there exists a dealership agreement between two on principal to principal basis. Further OP1 has extended warranty to each new Maurti Suzuki vehicle distributed in India through its authorized network of dealers for any defect in material and workmanship at the time of manufacturing of the vehicle. OP2 to OP5 are the persons holding Managerial positions with OP1 in different capacities. Likewise OP7 to OP10 are the directors of OP6 while OP11 to OP16 are the managers/employees of OP6.

8.                The complainant, an Advocate by profession, purchased a new Maruti Suzuki Swift ZXI AMT Car in exchange of his old car Ford Figo bearing No.PB-10-DU-7314. The car was pre-booked and on appointment day i.e. 29.11.2019, the complainant reached in the afternoon at the dealership of OP6 and the vehicle was delivered to him in the late evening. According to the complainant, the delivery place lacked proper lighting. At the time of delivery, photographs were also taken. However, on the following day, the complainant found some scratches on the bonnet of the car and the matter was immediately brought to the notice of the officials of the dealer and at their asking, the complainant visited the dealership for inspection and replacement of the car but instead A Teflon coating was done to rectify the scratches. The complainant had been repeatedly approaching them and representing through telephonic messages and Emails Ex. C8/A to Ex. C8/C, but the OPs did not replace the vehicle and hence the present complaint was filed.

9.                Admittedly, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor the complainant has pleaded or proved the same by leading evidence of an expert. So the liability of manufacturer would only arise if the vehicle was having some manufacturing defect at the time of delivery and the same is covered under the warranty. Further dealership agreement of OP1 with OP6 is on principal to principal basis and as such, no liability can be fastened upon OP1 to OP5    and the complaint is hereby dismissed against them.

10.              The evidence lead on record including photographs clearly depicts that there were scratches on the bonnet of the car and in order to cover the same, officials of OP6 were quick to cover the same with Teflon coating. Although in the written statement, OP1 has propounded a story on behalf of the dealer that at the time of Pre Delivery Inspection (PDI) there was no scratch and the complainant took the vehicle to outside auto outlet for alloy fitment and such scratch, if any, might have occurred when the vehicle was taken out side from the dealership but no gate pass/delivery challan were brought on record to show that the vehicle was taken out before it was actually handed over to the complainant in the late evening. The allegations of the complainant with regard to mental harassment, agony, mental trauma has gone unrebutted since OP4 to OP7, OP9 to OP11 and OP13 to OP16 have not chosen to appear before this Commission. In this regard, reference can be made to 2021(3) CLT 309 in Gaurav Prehar Vs Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd. And others in which the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh has made the following observation:-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Sections 2(42), 47 & 49(2) -Housing constructions – Pleadings - Ex-parte - Adverse inference –Held - The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ-The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy-The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted-OP was proceeded against exparte-Thus, all the averments made in the compliant are deemed to have been admitted by it and the evidence led by the complainant stands unrebutted; for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against OP-complaint partly allowed”

In the given circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if OP6 is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for delivering a new vehicle having scratches on its bonnet.  It amounts to unfair trade practice on behalf of OP6. As such, OP6 is liable to pay a composite compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and the complaint against remaining OPs is dismissed.

11.              As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that opposite party No.6 shall pay a composite compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which opposite party No.6 shall be liable to pay interest the rate or 8% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of complaint till its actual payment. However, the complaint as against remaining opposite parties  is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.10.2024.

Gobind Ram.