DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Mrs. Anamika Uppal, #1326, Sec.44-B, Chandigarh-160047.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

1]   Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office, (N-2) SCO No. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2]   M/s Berkeley Automobiles Ltd., Dealer Code: 0704, through its Managing Director, Plot No.27 (Plot No.24, as mentioned in documents, in previous address), Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

              Sh. Parmod Jain, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1

              Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant had purchased Alto Lxi car from the Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure-1 & 2). According to the Complainant there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, as there is wobbling in the car at the speed of around 70 kmph and front suspension gives heavy scratching sound. This problem was noticed for the first time when the car had already covered a distance of 4962 kms when the Complainant had taken the car out of Chandigarh. It is alleged that the car has been repeatedly taken by the Complainants to the Workshop of the Opposite Parties during the period of free service and thereafter, but the problem has not been rectified. Details of all visits have been given. The Opposite Parties in an attempt to rectify the defect have tried wheel balancing, wheel alignment, change of wheel rims, putting heavy weights on all five wheels etc. since 18/2/2010, but the defect in the car according to the Complainant is un-rectifiable and she has been requesting the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount paid for the car. As the grievance has not been redressed, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint with a prayer for refund of Rs.2,64,767/-, along with compensation and costs of litigation. All correspondence exchanged between the parties as well as job cards and regarding visits of the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 are part of the record on the file. 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Party No.1 in reply has taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint on false allegations. The manufacturer of tyre has not been made a party to the complaint. If alignment and balancing is out of order, it could be a result of driving the vehicle on damaged/ broken roads. The allegations made in the complaint and the compensation claimed for are not substantiated by any material on record.

          On merits, Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that the vehicle has been purchased from the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant has herself assessed the manufacturing defect in the vehicle of which she is not qualified nor does she has any expertise to comment. All vehicles manufactured by the Opposite Party are certified FCOK (Final Check OK) before being dispatched to the dealers. From the evidence on record, the Complainant has brought the vehicle at the workshop for first service on 12.11.2009 at 1034 Kms. No alleged problem was reported. At the time of second free routine service on 18.02.2010 at 4962 Kms neither any abnormality was reported nor observed. Normal service as per maintenance schedule along with wheel alignment and wheel balancing were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that wheel balancing and wheel alignment is required to be done periodically to keep the tyres in good condition which gets disturbed during regular use of vehicle or on plying the vehicle on damaged roads. Even after other services no alleged problem was reported. The Complainant reported the alleged problem for the first time on 18.11.2010 after the vehicle had plied for more than 16361 Kms. The vehicle was inspected and no abnormality was observed. However, Opposite Party No.1 assured the Complainant for replacement of rims after necessary checks and inspection. After the required minor adjustments, Complainant took delivery of the car without any protest. Hence, all contentions of the Complainant about manufacturing defect or the alleged problems in the vehicle which is running normally without any defect and playing reliance on settled law, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.        Opposite Party No.2 has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is false, frivolous and with an ulterior motive of taking undue benefit by harassing and pressurizing the answering Opposite Party. The Complainant does not have direct knowledge of facts as it is her husband Mr. Satish Uppal who has always approached the Opposite Parties, which is proved from the signatures put on various documents placed as annexures along with the complaint. The vehicle of the Complainant has no inherent manufacturing defect and the alleged defects are either the result of bad driving or mishandling or use on damaged roads due to normal wear and tear. The Complainant has approached answering Opposite Party for service. On all the visits, no defect regarding wobbling/ knocking sound/ wrong tyre wear/ suspension/ shockers was ever pointed by the Complainant. Every time either the jobs under service schedule were done or the repairs due to wear and tear of the vehicle in use, which clearly show that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 

          On merits, Opposite Party No.2 has contended that the allegations of manufacturing defect levelled by the Complainant are vague, as the husband of the Complainant has never allowed the answering Opposite Party to check the vehicle properly and only comes to the workshop of the answering Opposite Party to lodge his complaint about the alleged defects. No complaint of wobbling of the car at any speed was ever given to the answering Opposite Party. Also, the averment about putting heavy weights on all five wheels cannot be considered as the weights so affixed were only 40 Gms., 50 Gms., 45 Gms. and 20 Gms. total numbering 10 were used during the course of wheel alignment which is part of the second service schedule and were not due to any defect in the vehicle. Even when the husband of the Complainant insisted on changing three rims of the car his grievance was satisfied free of cost. Opposite Party No.2 has contended that it is evident from the attitude of the husband of the Complainant that he only wished for replacement of the vehicle. Regarding allegations of defective tyres the Complainant was referred to Apollo Tyres to rule out the possibility of any problems with the tyres. This would not mean that the Opposite Party was trying to shift the blame on another. All other similar date wise allegations of the Complainant has been denied. Opposite Party No.2 has stated that the vehicle is defect free which is evident from the repair history of the vehicle and has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.          During the course of proceedings an effort was made by this Forum for reconciliation and Opposite Party No.2 was asked to repair the vehicle. As per statements recorded on 15.07.2011, Opposite Party No.2 agreed to repair the vehicle of the Complainant to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. Vide statement recorded on 05.08.2011, the Opposite Party No.2 had removed all the defects in the car besides replacing of wheel rims and all five tyres free of cost. However, the Complainant stated that though she had received the vehicle, she is not satisfied with the same. On an application moved by Complainant on 17.11.2011, u/s 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the car was sent to the Director Principal, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh for examination and to point out the defects in the vehicle, if any. 

8.          The car was examined by an Expert Committee constituted by the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and a report dated 14.09.2012 was given. Relevant extract of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“The vehicle having registration No.CH04L9993, Engine No.F8DN3723682, Chassis No. MA3EYD81SO 1464409 was presented for inspection by Sh. Satish Uppal.

The vehicle in question was inspected and test driven for 13 Kms.

The Committee after inspection, test drive and perusal of records is of the opinion:-

1.   The alignment of the vehicle is not proper.

2.   Excessive weights are provided on the rims of wheels (inside) which is not desirable.

3.   Suspension system of the vehicle is faulty.

4.   The vehicle is wobbling at the speed of around 70 Kmph which is not desirable.

The above observations may not attribute to manufacturing defects as these can be rectified by replacement of suspension system.”   

          From the observations made by the Expert Committee, it is evident that the defect in the vehicle has not been attributed to a manufacturing defect and the fault in the vehicle is rectifiable by replacement of suspension system.

9.          The allegations of the Complainant regarding various visits to the Opposite Parties about wobbling of the vehicle have to be seen in the light of the fact that the vehicle is still running. The Complainant is continuing to use the car even today. It is not the case of the Complainant that the car is non-functional and is standing stalled due to the alleged defects.

10.        A similar situation came before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled C.N. Anantharam V/s Fiat India Ltd. & Others, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 460. In this case, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had ordered as under:-

“….Therefore, while we hold that the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect, all the same, the dealer and the manufacturer are directed to remove the defect, if any, in the vehicle make it roadworthy, if necessary by reconditioning the vehicle and deliver it to the complainant in the presence of an independent technical expert mutually agreed upon by the complainant and opposite parties and for this purpose any of the party may apply to the District Forum for appointing such expert if it is not mutually agreed upon by the parties. The expert shall certify that the vehicle is free from any defect which shall be final for all purposes. This should be done within a period of three months. The Ops, thereafter, to provide a warranty for one year from the date of delivery. The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of in these terms. Under the peculiar facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.”

[Para 8 of the Judgment]

          While also referring to other instances of settled law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-

22.  From the facts as disclosed, it appears that apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine and the gear box, there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation, particularly when the engine was replaced with a new one. However, in addition to the directions given by the National Commission, we direct that if the independent technical expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and the lifetime tax and EMI along with interest @ 12% per annum and costs, as directed by the State Commission.

23.  In such circumstances, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of with the above directions.”

          The situation in the instant case can also be analysed and adjudicated on the same terms as the cited case mandates.

11.        It is safe to deduce that apart from wobbling sound, no major defect has been pointed out in the vehicle, which can be said to make the vehicle incapable of use and operation.

12.        In view of above discussion, finding merit in the allegations of the Complainant, we allow the present complaint and pass the following orders:-

(a)  Opposite Party No.2 to rectify the defects in the car as per the report dated 14.09.2012 of the Expert Committee. The repair shall be done by the Opposite Party No.2 free of cost. All parts needing replacement shall be provided by Opposite Party No.1 free of cost.

           After the car is rectified, the Experts be called to certify that the car is free from any defect. At this time, representatives of all parties must be present.

           Additional warranty of one year ‘only for the defects’ which have been pointed out and rectified be also given to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1. 

(b)  The costs of Rs.22,472/- incurred by the Complainant for taking the expert opinion dated 14.09.2012 be paid/ reimbursed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to the Complainant.

(c)  Additional costs, if any, incurred for obtaining the certificate from the Experts after rectification of the car be also borne by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

13.        This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

14.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29^th May, 2013                            

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER