Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/500

Rajiv gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Alok Mohindra adv

24 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 500 dated 07.08.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 24.11.2021.

Rajiv Gupta S/o. Late Sh. Amrit Lal, R/o. House No.2441, Sector 32-A, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Plot No.1, Phase 3-A, IMT Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana, Pin Code 122051, through its MD/Chairman.

2. Gulzar Motors, G.T. Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, through its MD/Authorized person.

3. Bhupinder Singh Bawa, Service Head of Gulzar Motors, GT Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.

4. Pankaj Kumar, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Plot No.1, Phase 3-A, IMT Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana                         

5. Sahil Kumar, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, SCO 39-40, Madhya Marg, Meghdoot Postal Colony, Sector 8, Chandigarh, Pin Code 160036.                                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Gaurav Anand, Advocate.

For OP3 to OP5             :         Complaint against OP3 to OP5 not admitted.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Swift car bearing registration No.PB10-FR-6321 on 25.03.2016 from OP2 who is the authorized dealer of OP1, the manufacturer of the car. Few weeks after the purchase, the AC of the car started giving constant problem. As and when the complainant used to increase the fan speed of the AC, it would stop working. The complainant informed OP2 regarding the defect. The car was checked by OP2 and OP3, but the defect could not be rectified. At the time of second service, OP2 prepared a job order in which the factum of malfunction of AC was duly mentioned. At the time of handing over the car after second service, OP3 represented that the problem is fixed and AC would work properly. However, despite the assurance given by OP2 and its employees, the problem persisted. The complainant again informed OP2 in October 2016 regarding the problem in the AC who sent a technician to the residence of the complainant to fix the problem, but it could not be rectified. The said technician gave a suggestion that the complainant should keep the speed of the fan at number 2 and only then the AC will start cooling and in case the complainant increase the fan speed to 3 number, then the AC would not work and only the fan would work. This shows that there was clearly a manufacturing defect in the car which the OPs could never resolve.

2.                It is further alleged that the wind shield of the car was also misplaced due to which he complainant apprehend that it might fall at anytime. The paint of the car also deteriorated on the bonnet and the doors. It further shows that there were inherent defect in the car and its body was made of rusted steel. The OPs could not give any reasonable explanation regarding the condition of the car. The complainant sent emails dated 21.03.2018, 27.04.2018 and 01.05.2018 to the Ops, but despite that his grievance was not redressed nor the car was repaired. Hence the complaint whereby a request has been made that the OPs be directed to replace the car with a new one and be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- or in the alternative refund the purchase amount of Rs.7,30,000/- along with interest @18% per annum.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that there has been no problem of any kind in the air conditioner of the car nor any such problem relating to the car or paint had ever been reported to OP2. It has also been denied if the car has been lying in the workshop of OP2 since 15.03.2018. According to OP1, the car was received on 17.03.2017. It had run 10252KM. No problem was reported in the car. Now the car had been plied for more than 17037KM as on 02.05.2018. this shows that the complainant has been using the car and has filed the present complaint just to obtain undue gains. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous. According to OP2, on 26.04.2016, at the time of first service, the vehicle was inspected at the workshop and the grille temperature was found to be at 7.8C which was within normal range. On 12.09.2016, at the time of second service of the vehicle, it was thoroughly inspected by the staff of OP2 and the complainant did not point out any defect in the car including the AC. The complainant again brought the car to the workshop on 24.09.2016 and reported that there was some defect in the AC which was not effective. The staff of OP2 checked the AC gas and found that there was absolutely no leakage in the same. The AC gas was recollected and refitted and system was cleaned. After having been satisfied, the complainant took back the car with him. On 17.03.2017, the complainant again brought the car at the workshop of OP2 for third service with reading of ODO Meter 10252KM. Even at that time, the complainant did not complain any defect in the AC and took back the vehicle, being fully satisfied. After that the complainant brought the vehicle on 02.05.2018 to the workshop of OP2 and complained that the bonnet of the car had dots of rusting. At that time, the car was also inspected and it was observed that the bonnet hood would be repainted as a goodwill gesture, but the complainant refused for the same. The dots on bonnet due to chipping which is very normal when the vehicle is plied on the road. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

5.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 25.09.2020 nor any affidavit or documents have been formally tendered in evidence by the complainant.  

6.                We have heard the counsel for the OP1 and OP2 and proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                The allegations are that there was a defect in the AC of the car and later on, the paint of the car starting deteriorating and its wind shield also got slightly dislocated. However, to prove these allegations, the complainant has not examined any witness much less an expert witness. In these circumstances, we are left with no option but to hold that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

8.                As a result of above discussion, it is held that the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.11.2021.

Gobind Ram.