Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/41

Rajesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.41 of 15.01.2014

Date of Decision            :  24.02.2016 

 

Rajesh Gupta aged about 49 years son of Sh.Roshan Lal resident of 735-B, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus             

 

1.Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Head Office, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director.

 

2.Mr.Kenichi Ayukawa Managing Director & CEO Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Head Office, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

 

3.Maruti Suzuki India Limited, having its Regional Office at SCO 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160008.

 

4.Stan Wheels Pvt. Ltd., Thareeke Road, Near Iyali Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Director, Authorized dealer of the Opposite party no.1 company.

…Opposite parties

                   

                    (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh.Hitesh Ghai, Advocate

For OP4                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant Sh.Rajesh Gupta filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter as referred as the ‘Act’) against the OPs, by claiming that he purchased one Maruti Swift Desire VDI BS IV for consideration of Rs.6,29,091/- vide invoice No.282 dated 2.6.2010 from OP4, the authorized dealer of OP1. Later on registration No.PB-10-CY-0735 was allotted to this vehicle. Insurance for this vehicle was even purchased from Op4. Ops represented that car is the best car in its segment and complainant will get best services after purchase. Even it was disclosed to the complainant that car is most fuel efficient and customer friendly. Even representation was made to the effect that running cost of the said car is almost negligible and complainant will not face any problem whatsoever in plying the car. After believing these representations, the complainant purchased the above said car, but to his utter surprise, it was   found that the car consumes high consumption of engine oil. Thereafter, complainant took the car to the workshop of OP4, who did first service by changing the engine oil at the stage, when the car has travelled 1379 Kms alone. Rs.791/- was charged from the complainant. Despite that the complainant faced problem of high consumption of engine oil and poor pick up of the car as well as of the performance of the engine. Car was taken to the workshop of OP4 again on 17.7.2011, where representative of OPs disclosed the complainant that engine oil has to be changed as there is high consumption of engine oil. Again engine oil was added, when the car covered mileage of 10262 Kms only. Rs.1350/- again were charged from the complainant. Even thereafter, the problem of high engine oil consumption, poor pick up etc., continued. Engine oil again was changed on 17.4.2012, when the car covered mileage of 17429 Kms. Rs.1410/- was charged from the complainant at that time. In April, 2012, the complainant again faced the same problem and he approached  OPs, who called upon the complainant to purchase extended warranty, if he wants to get his car repaired. The complainant has no other option except to get the warranty extended till 29.05.2013 by paying Rs.5360/- through cheque. Again on 29.4.2012, a sum of Rs.1727/- was charged from the complainant because there was problem in the front suspension. Complainant again took the car to the workshop of OP4 with the same problem. Every time assurance was given to the complainant that he will not face the above referred problem in future, but outcome remained otherwise. Sometimes suspension armed were changed and various times, engine oil was changed on account of high fuel consumption. It is claimed that OPs admitted as if there is a manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant again had to take the car to the workshop of OP4 on 25.7.2012 and at that time, change of Gas Ket (Cyl Head To 82) Gas Ket Set (Engine No.3, Piston Wring Set, Gas Ket Injector and Engine Overhaul was done. Even overhauling of the engine was done at that time, when the car covered mileage of 19607 Kms. Complainant again faced the same problem, when the car covered distance of 2200 Kms approximately i.e. mileage from 19607 Kms to 21808 Kms. Again engine oil was changed by charging Rs.5096/- from the complainant on 2.10.2012. It is claimed that the complainant has always remained under tension due to problem of high engine oil consumption and as such by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, directions sought to OPs to replace the car with brand new car without any manufacturing defect or in the alternative, prayer made for issuing directions to OPs to refund the entire price amount along with interest @18% p.a. Compensation of Rs.3 lacs for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- also claimed. It is also claimed that vehicle was again taken to the workshop of OP4 on 19.10.2013, when it had covered mileage of 29884 Kms. At that time, Mr.Arora, Manager of OP4 admitted that there is manufacturing defect in the car. A note was recorded that after running 3721 Kms only, the quantity of engine oil was reduced to 1.7 litre. Number of complaints through toll free number were lodged by the complainant with OPs, but no due response was got. Complainant talked with Mr.Amit Jain on his mobile, who assured that complainant will not face any problem in future. However, all those assurances  went in air because the complainant continued to face the same problem regarding the engine. Complaint No.9977550418 even was lodged on 16.10.2013 by the complainant with Ms.Nidhi, representative of OPs. Despite that complaint, action was not taken and thereafter, the complainant further lodged complaint No.2520563979 on 7.11.2013 as well as complaint No.3595066055 on 8.11.2013. However, despite numerous complaints on telephone or otherwise, action for removing the complained of defects was not duly taken and that is why this complaint.

2.                OP1 to OP3 filed their joint written statement by claiming interalia as if complaint is wholly misconceived; complaint has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation, due to which, the same is not maintainable under Section 24-A of the Act; there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of answering OPs; clause 3 of the warranty policy provides the warranty subject to terms and conditions therein. It is claimed that the complainant has suppressed the material facts and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. There was no defect in the delivered vehicle to the complainant. No amount was paid by the complainant to the answering OPs because they being the manufacturer of the vehicle, responsible to provide the warranty services as per the terms and conditions of the warranty only. It is claimed that the answering OPs have been impleaded just for getting compensation. Answering OPs have not made any representation to the complainant and nor any complaint lodged by the complainant with them. Record of job cards will disclose the complained of problems. As per the vehicle history of the car dated 23.6.2010, the change of  engine oil took place, which is part and parcel of routine maintenance and service schedule. That in    no way is a defect. Complainant visited OP4 on 11.09.2010 for second free service prior to 17.7.2011. At the time of second free service, complainant did not disclose OP4 about the alleged problem. Even after  11.9.2010, complainant had sent his car to OP4 several times for paid services because the vehicle required accidental repairs as mentioned in the vehicle history and job card sheets dated 29.3.2011 and 18.5.2011 respectively. Even on 17.7.2011, problem in question was not reported by the complainant to OP4. On 17.4.2012, the vehicle had gone for accidental repairs qua which mention is made in the vehicle history/job card dated 17.4.2012. The car had suffered an under body hit, due to which, left hand suspension arm and oil pan stood damaged. Complainant has submitted incomplete facts. On 29.4.2012, the front suspension of the vehicle was changed because the vehicle had suffered an under body hit resulting in damage to LHS Suspension. Vehicle of the complainant was taken to OP4 for routine service. Road test of the car in question was done and same was found OK. Even the engine parameters were found OK, being as per the norms. When the vehicle taken by the complainant to OP4 on 2.10.2012 and 25.4.2013 for routine services, then no problem was found in the working of the engine. Rather, it is claimed that complainant time and again complained about so called non-existent problem after the accident just for getting the car replaced with new one. There was no defect in the vehicle and the works manager of OP4 never admitted about the existence of problem in the vehicle. Due services were provided as and when the vehicle in question brought by the complainant for service to the service station of OP4 and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complaint alleged to be filed with ulterior motive.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP4, it is pleaded interalia as if the complainant has no locus standi; complainant is estopped by his act and conduct and principles of acquiescence from filing the complaint and that provision of Act are not applicable. Complaint  alleged to be bad due to non-joinder of insurance company of the car. Complainant himself remained negligent in maintaining and using the car. Rectification of the accidental repairs was done by the OP4. Those repairs had to be carried out due to misuse or negligent driving or mis-handling of the car by the complainant. Complainant cannot be permitted to avail benefit of the warranty clause because the same is not applicable. At every point of time, OP4 tried his level best to maintain good relations with customers and that is why, best services were provided, but those have been misutilized by the complainant. Complainant cannot be allowed to get benefit of his own wrong. No manufacturing defect was found at any point of time in the car. Record of job card available with OP4 shows the guilt and negligent driving of the vehicle by the complainant, due to which, the under body of the car stood hit resulting in damage to left hand suspension arm and oil pan. That fact was quite within the knowledge of the complainant. Due to under body hit, air filter stood choked. Complainant without any cause of action had been torturing OP4 to perform all acts within the ambit of warranty, even though misdeeds committed by the complainant not covered by the clauses of warranty. Complainant himself approached  OP4 for purchase of the vehicle and he after satisfying himself about performance and efficiency of the vehicle in question, purchased the same.  No representations were ever made to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Free services were provided as per norms by charging the price of the engine oil because it is customer, who has to pay the price of the engine oil. Change of engine oil was done as per manual of MSIL. On 17.7.2011, 3^rd free service was provided and filter was changed. Fact qua damage caused to the vehicle in question was disclosed to the complainant at the time of performing  the 3^rd service. No complaint was lodged by the complainant on 17.7.2011 with the answering Op. Facility of extended warranty was availed by the complainant with his sweet will and no representation was made to complainant by OP4 at that time. Repairs falling within the warranty clause were carried out for maintaining good customer’s relations. It is not denied that amount for seeking extended warranty was charged from the complainant. Complete averments with regard to the services extended by the answering OP to the complainant have not been made with malafide intention by the complainant. The car in question never suffered from any manufacturing defect. Change of certain parts is a matter of record and the same does not fall within the purview of deficiency in service. Complainant aspire that OP4 should do unacceptable favour to him and that is why he has filed this complaint without any just cause and reason. It is claimed that complaint has been filed by levelling false accusations against the OP4, albeit there was no deficiency in service and nor any unfair trade practice adopted by the OP4 and as such, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C32 and thereafter, counsel for the complainant closed the evidence on 27.04.2015 by praying that his application for examining expert witness should be kept pending till the conclusion of the evidence by OPs.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 to OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Ranveer Singh Kalia, ASM along with documents Ex.R1/B to Ex.R1/K and Ex.R1/C to Ex.R1/C3 and then closed the evidence.

6.                          As none turned up for OP4 and nor any evidence produced by him and as such, OP4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.07.2015.

7.                Written arguments submitted by the complainant, but oral arguments addressed by both the counsels for the parties.

8.                An application for appointment of expert as Local Commissioner was kept pending and that is why the same is also decided through this order itself.

ON APPLICATION DATED 24.09.2014:-

9.                This application was filed by the complainant by claiming that there is manufacturing defect in the car supplied by OPs to the complainant and as such, there is need to appoint expert as local commissioner for inspection of the car. Complainant claims that he is ready to bear the expenses for appointment of the expert.

10.              In reply submitted to the above said application dated 24.09.2014, it is claimed that there is no need to appoint local commissioner for determining or extracting or detecting the existence of manufacturing defect because manufacturing defect actually does not exist. Rather, it is claimed that mater can be decided on the basis of evidence of the parties. Application being vague and indefinite alleged to be not maintainable.

11.              Arguments on this application also heard along with arguments on main case.

12.              Record of the job cards Ex.C10 to Ex.C13, Ex.C15 to Ex.C19, Ex.C21 to Ex.C27 and Ex.R1/I to Ex.R1/K of different dates have been produced by both the parties. That record of job cards will disclose as to for what problems,  complaints lodged by the complainant qua his vehicle in question and as to on which dates,  which services  were  provided  for  removing  those defects.  That      record of the job cards definitely will enable us to determine as to whether any manufacturing defect exist in the vehicle or not and as such, there is no need to appoint expert as local commissioner, particularly when the manufacturing defect specifically not pointed out except that engine fuel consumption was high or that there was no proper pick up. Rather from the produced job cards, it is made out that under body of the car was hit resulting in damage to LHS suspension. So, damage to the car was caused due to negligent driving by the complainant and as such, virtually application has been filed without any basis for covering the fault attributable to the complainant himself. So, looking from any angle, application is not maintainable and merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.

ON MERITS:-

13.              It is vehemently contended by the counsel for complainant that high engine oil consumption again and again after running of few kilometers of the car and repair of the overhauling of the engine or of change of piston assembly, ring and change of seal valve stem or of gasket etc., enough to hold as if there was manufacturing defect in the car. These submissions stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for Ops by contending that due services were provided to the complainant, despite the fact that he himself was negligent in driving the car resulting in hitting the under body of the same. The car in question admittedly purchased by the complainant through invoice Ex.C1 on 2.6.2010. Receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 of payment even produced on record. Copy of registration certificate is produced on record as Ex.C5 and that of insurance cover note as Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. There is no dispute qua the fact that extended warranty qua the car in question got by the complainant with validity upto 29.5.2013. Copy of certificate of extended warranty registration Ex.C9 of date 19.4.2012 has been produced. After going through clause 2(b) and 3(i) of Ex.C7 i.e. terms and conditions of extended warranty, it is made out that the said warranty will not cover the claim, in case, the vehicle met with an accident and even the same will not cover the claim qua the repair or replacement of the parts required as a result of accident or collision. Even after going through the reported citation titled as Terex Vectra Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meharchand-IV(2012)CPJ-87(Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur), it is made out that in case, the entries of the job card reflect that there had been major defect in the vehicle resulting in replacement of the parts thrice within 7 months of purchase of vehicle, then the inference of inherent defect in the vehicle liable to be drawn, particularly when no evidence produced to substantiate the allegation qua vehicle was not handled properly by the complainant. In the case before us first free service was provided to the complainant on 23.6.2010, when the car had travelled distance of 1379 miles. That service was with respect to the parts of nut and engine oil by charging Rs.791/-. Thereafter, 3^rd free service was got done on 17.7.2011, when the car travelled mileage of 10262 kms as disclosed by the contents of job card sheet Ex.C11. At that time, parts of clip(black), element, air cleaner, oil filter, MGDO(15W40)-Mobil, horn assy were changed or repaired. In none of these job card sheets mention made qua the complaint of high fuel consumption. For the first time, complaint regarding high fuel consumption made on 17.04.2012, when the car was brought for service, when it had travelled distance of 17429 kms. Same is reflected by contents of job card sheet Ex.C12. Oil filter, element, air cleaner, horn assy and clip(black) were repaired/replaced on 17.04.2012 is a fact borne from contents of job card Ex.C12. Changes of oil filter or of air filter cleaner is not a manufacturing defect because these changes required as per service schedule normally for augmenting the efficiency of the engine. After going through the contents of Ex.C12, it is made out that complaint of high fuel consumption was made for the first time on 17.4.2012 i.e. after 1 year and 10 months of purchase of the car. Change of engine oil at the time of first service was required because such change done after coverage of 1000 Kms some time. Schedule service manual bound to remain with the customer and after going through the same, it can be made out as to when    first and second or 3^rd services to be provided and what changes required in these services. That service manual book has not been produced on record by the complainant, though available with him and as such, complainant has withheld the best available  evidence  for  proving  that  services provided in first free        service or in the 3^rd free service were against the norms of service schedule. Rather, act of complainant qua complaining of high fuel consumption after 1 year and 10 months of purchase of car itself reflects as if manufacturing defect not there in the car, particularly when at the time of such complaint, the car had already travelled distance of 17129 Kms. Change of element/air filter/oil filter is a part of the routine service and same  was done on 19.4.2012 as revealed by job card sheet Ex.C13. Change of LHS suspension arm took place on 29.4.2012, when running repair was done as revealed by job card sheet Ex.C15. For the IInd time, complaint    regarding high engine oil consumption was made on 21.7.2012, when the car taken for service as revealed by job card sheet Ex.C16. In Ex.C16 mention specifically made that under body of the vehicle was hit resulting in damage to LHS suspension arm and oil pan. Full overhauling of the engine was done on 25.7.2012, when the car travelled distance of 19607 Kms and as revealed by contents of job card sheet Ex.C18 of 25.7.2012. However, before this date of 25.7.2012, under body of the vehicle stood hit resulting in damage to LHS suspension arm and oil pan as revealed by Ex.C16 the job card sheet dated 21.7.2012. How under body of the vehicle stood hit resulting in damage to LHS suspension arm and oil pan qua that no explanation has been offered by the complainant at all and as such, certainly complaint has been filed by the complainant by suppressing the material facts qua damage to LHS suspension arm and oil pan due to hitting of under body of the vehicle. Question of hitting the under body of the vehicle can arise only, if the car not driven properly because such hitting possible in case the car driven on ditches or bumpy road or the same taken above hums at high speed. In view of this submission advanced by the counsel for the OPs has force that either the car in question not properly handled by the complainant or some accident caused to the vehicle resulting in hitting the under body of the vehicle, due to which benefit of warranty not available to the complainant in view of clause 3(i) of Ex.C7.

14.              Repair for change of gasket set, ring set, piston, seal valve stem, injector etc., took place on 31.7.2012, when the car travelled mileage of 19607 Kms as revealed by contents of Ex.C19. That service provided to the customer as per satisfaction of the customer. Through Ex.C20, change of piston ring and valve seal took place on 31.07.2012. Full overhauling of the engine was done on 25.7.2012 as revealed by contents of job card Ex.C18. However, the complainant made endorsement on Ex.C18 itself that he will be satisfied with the carried out repair only after driving the vehicle. However, the authorized signatory of OP4 found the engine parameter as per norms by endorsement recorded on Ex.C18. So at the time of full overhauling during the period from 25.7.2012 to 31.7.2012 as revealed by Ex.C17 to Ex.C19, the car in question had already come for repair due to its under body hit qua which reflection made in job sheet Ex.C16 of 21.7.2012. If under body hitting resulted in damage to LHS suspension arm and oil pan, then consumption of engine oil bound to remain high and as such from these documents brought on record by the complainant, it is made out that actually overhauling of the engine took place due to damage to the car before 19.4.2012. In job card sheet Ex.C13 of 19.4.2012 itself it has been mentioned that under body of the vehicle stood hit resulting in damage to LHS suspension arm and oil pan qua which information was given to the complainant. Signature of complainant as customer is there on Ex.C13 and as such, the record of job card sheet Ex.C13 produced by the complainant itself reflects that complainant was informed about the damage to his car due to under hitting of the body even on 19.4.2012. Change of LHS suspension arm on account of under hitting of the body of the vehicle  took  place on 29.4.2012 as revealed by Ex.C15, but the first complaint regarding high engine oil consumption made on 17.4.2012(Ex.C12) and then on 21.7.2012 as revealed by the contents of Ex.C16 and as such, it is obvious that virtually the complaint regarding high consumption oil made  for  the  first  time  by  the  complainant  after pointed out                  damages due to under body hitting of the car and consequent damages. Repairs carried out consequent to the collision or accident not covered by the warranty clause and as such, in case, the change of LHS suspension arm or of gasket took place after two months of collision or pointed out mis-handling of the car by the complainant, then certainly OPs cannot be held liable as per clause 3(i) of Ex.C7 itself.

15.              Complainant availed paid service on 2.10.2012 against insurance coupon, when the car travelled distance of 21808 Kms as revealed by Ex.C21 and thereafter, full overhauling of engine as well as change of piston assy and gasket set etc., took place on 15.05.2013 as revealed by Ex.C22 and Ex.C23. Again complaint of high engine oil consumption lodged by the complainant on 25.4.2013 as revealed by job card sheet Ex.C24 and that complaint was subsequent to the first lodged complaint of 17.4.2012 as discussed above. This complaint  pertains to     the period subsequent to the pointed out mis-handling of the car by the complainant as discussed above. So, if the engine oil current mileage from SUMP-1.700 LTR found on 19.10.2013 through Ex.C25, then it was case of damage to engine oil pan pointed out through Ex.C13 on 19.4.2012 as referred above. Perusal of Ex.C27, the job sheet of 20.11.2013 reveals that engine oil sump leaked qua which observations recorded in this job sheet. As under body part stood hit more than 1 year and 7 months prior of issue of job card Ex.C27 and as such, observations recorded in Ex.C27 are correct that vehicle not covered under warranty. So, record of all above referred job card sheets reflects that defect of high engine fuel consumption pointed out for the first time on 17.4.2012 (Ex.C12=Ex.R1/K) , but at that time, damage to the LHS suspension arm and      oil pan was reported to the complainant through job card sheets dated 18.5.2011 and 17.4.2012 itself as referred in Ex.R1/F and Ex.R1/E.

16.              Record of job card sheet of 18.5.2011 Ex.R1/F itself discloses as if the vehicle in question required body repair resulting in replacement of front bumper/bonnet hood and left fender. Job of repair of denting/paining was done at that time as revealed by Ex.R1/F of date 18.5.2011 itself. Question of such body repair to arise only if vehicle would have been hit against some solid object and as such, contents of Ex.R1/F itself reflects that vehicle in question met with an accident prior to 18.5.2011 and that is why on recommendation of National Insurance Company, work of repair by way of denting/painting was carried out. Work of denting/painting even was carried out on 29.3.2011 on the recommendation of the National Insurance Company is also a fact borne from contents of Vehicle History Sheet Ex.R1/G. So, certainly submissions advanced by the counsel for the OPs has force that the complaint is misconceived because job of full overhauling of the engine was carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of warranty. As that warranty does not cover the replacement or repair of parts caused by accidental or collision, but that is shown to have taken place somewhere in     March 2011 as revealed by Ex.R1/G and Ex.R1/F and as such story of manufacturing defect is a concocted one. Rather mishandling of the car or negligent driving of the car resulted in under body hitting and damage to LHS suspension arm as well as oil pan, which caused high engine oil consumption and as such, the complaint being misconceived, merits dismissal. Rather, complainant has concealed the material facts qua accidental damage to the car resulting in under body hitting and as such, in view of suppression of material facts also, complaint is not maintainable.

17.              In the reported cases titled as Texas Vectra Pvt. Ltd vs. Meharchand(Supra); Muktaji Vishnuji Chemate vs. Escorts Ltd and others-II(2014)CPJ-97(N.C.); Bimla Paper Products vs. Somaya Impex Private Limited-II(2014)CPJ-120(Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla); Toyata Kirloskar Motor Ltd and another vs. Jayesh T.Tanna and another-I(2014)CPJ-162(N.C.); Mandovi Motors Pvt.Ltd., Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. Pravenchandra Shetty and another-IV(2013)CPJ-410(N.C.) and Ashok Leyland Limited vs. Gopal Khan and others-I(2013)CPJ-201(N.C.), the manufacturing defect was found in view of the factual position of all these cases. However, that manufacturing defect not established, rather the facts discussed above establishes as if there was negligence in handling of the car in question properly by the complainant and as such, benefit of ratio of above cited cases not available to the complainant.

18.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, both complaint as well as application for appointment of expert as Local Commissioner are dismissed through this common order by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                       (G.K.Dhir)

                                                    Member                                 President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.02.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.