Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased brand new car bearing Model Martui Celerio ZXI having Engine and Chassis No. 2105831-496112 and provisional Registration No.PB29-AB-0627 from Opposite Party No.3 which was manufactured by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for consideration of Rs.4,73,953/- vide Invoice No.002/VSL/17000792 dated 07.03.2018 with warranty card of the vehicle. Further alleges that on 16.04.2018, the complainant found that such short span of time of the purchase of vehicle, the rust has occurred to damage the roof/ shell/ car body of the new vehicle and rust had eaten the said vehicle then she alongwith her husband immediately approached the Opposite Party No.3 and they told that after repairing, said new vehicle rust problem will be solved. On 17.04.2018 Opposite Party No.3 got repaired the vehicle by painting the colour on the roof of vehicle, but they did not tell the reason how rust is occurred within a very short span of its purchase. Not only this, even colour which the Opposite Party No.3 painted on the roof of the car did not match properly with the white colour of the vehicle and due to this reason, the vehicle of the complainant look ugly. Thereafter, the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.3 about the problem, but they did not listen. Thereafter, the complainant on 20.04.2018 wrote a complaint to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 informing about the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and also informed about the status and result of the repair made by Opposite Party No.3. Thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 called the complainant and assured to solve the rust problem in the vehicle and thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 gave the copy of the job card to the complainant on 20.04.2018 after getting the signatures of the complainant on various papers with excuse that same were required for it, but Opposite Party No.3 mentioned the date 20.04.2018 on it wrongly instead of 17.04.2018 which also unfair trade practice committed by Opposite Party No.3. As such, the material used in manufacturing for such car shell/ body by the Opposite Parties was lacking in quality, purity and strength and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is reputed company and such defect in a short span of time after the purchase of new car, is not expected in its product and due to substandard material used, the rust is occurred in the vehicle of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to replace the car bearing Model Maruti Celerio ZXI having Engine and Chassis No. 2105831-496112 and provisional Registration No.PB29-AB-0627 with new one and also give directions to the Opposite Parties to pay damages to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs on account of mental tension, agony, financial and physical harassment caused by the Opposite Parties alongwith costs of litigation amounting to Rs.5500/- or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission deem fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is an afterthought and filed with ulterior motives to make undue gain from the answering Opposite Parties. It is submitted that the alleged problem of rusting was reported to the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 on 20.04.2018. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that there were scratches on the roof which was due to external reasons/ impact and repairs were to be carried out on paid basis, but the complainant did not agree to the same. Still the necessary repairs and paint were carried out on free of costs basis under warranty as a gesture of goodwill for the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle and was fully satisfied with the repairs as is evident from the satisfaction note dated 2.04.2018. Moreover, the answering Opposite Party is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e. 2 years or 40000 KM from the date of sale. The complainant has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate her claim for compensation against the answering Opposite Party. On merits, it is alleged that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 sell its product to its authorised dealer and the relationship between the answering Opposite Party and the dealer is that of Principal to Principal only as per the dealership agreement executed between the Opposite Parties. The complainant entered into an independent transaction for the purchase of the vehicle in question with Opposite Party No.3 to which the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were neither party nor received any consideration for the same and the complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as far as the alleged transaction of sale is concerned. It is denied that the rusting had occurred on roof/ shell/ body of the vehicle and rust had eaten the vehicle or that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle or that Opposite Party No.3 painted the roof of the vehicle but the colour did not match. Moreover, the answering Opposite Party has been using the ultra technical equipment and robot in its paint shop during the paint process of the vehicle. The vehicle so manufactured by it passes through various stages in paint process, which is a worldwide accepted ultra-method for painting of a body shell. The car forming subject matter of the present complaint was manufactured in the State of the Art plant of answering Opposite Party where the painting process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of robots. The painting of the car is a lengthy and exhaustive process taking approximately 8 hours during which the car body travels more than 3 kms on a conveyor. Before doing actual painting, car body goes through pre-treatment process. This is followed by first coat of paint called Electro Deposition (ED) soluble paint. Paint is deposited on the car body in the same manner as electroplating operation. The car body is one electrode and tank is another electrode and high electric current is passed through. This process ensures uniform paint thickness on each and every part of the car body shell. After this coat of paint, car body goes to ED oven. This is followed by other process known as sealer application, under coat application and stone guard proofing. After the Ed coating, the body shell is ready for the next coat of paint called Intermediate Coat. This coat is applied manually using spray guns. This is followed by baking of the car body in Intermediate Coat oven. After Intermediate Coat, Wet Sanding is done, in which wet sand papers are used to remove ay dust particles on the car body. After wet sanding the car body goes to Wet Sanding Dry Off Oven so that car body is totally dry before it goes for final coat of paint. This final coat of paint is applied by combination of manual spray painting and automatic painting guns. This coat of colour gives the glossy finish to the Maruti Car. After giving the top coat, the car body goes through top coat oven. In all the ovens mentioned above car body is baked upto temperature of 160 degree Celsius. All these ovens run on natural gas from Bombay. The top coat process if followed by inspection and touch up. In order to maintain paint quality, paint shop has been sealed from all sides and entry of paint shop is allowed only to paint shop employees. The maximum permissible dust level in paint booths is 5 microns (thickness of human hair is 90 microns. The vehicles are painted in batches. It can be inferred that there is no manufacturing defect in the paint process, quality of paint or material. Till date several lakhs of vehicles have been manufactured and sold, which also signifies the highest grade of materials used in the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle is prone to rust or defect, if any used/ plied or stored properly and the corrosion depends on several external factors and environment conditions. Moreover, no report of any technician or expert has been placed on record. The complainant has failed to prove the case of defect or unfair trade practice against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant had purchased new vehicle on 07.03.2018 Celerio ZXI vide Invoice No.002/VSL/17000792 dated 07.03.2018 and the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfectly new and good condition after thoroughly satisfying her by checking the vehicle from interior and exterior. It was later only that the said vehicle of the complainant suffer the alleged small scratch on the roof to due to negligence of the complainant herself. Moreover, it was the duty of the complainant to have pointed out any defect in the vehicle at the time of taking the delivery and should have refused to accept the same at the time of delivery. However, it is out of sheer goodwill that the Opposite Party No.3 has repaired/ painted the said car roof without charging anything from the complainant to her complete satisfaction. Now the complainant has concocted a false story that the vehicle in question was already damaged before delivery, only to harass and blackmail the Opposite Party No.3. On merits, Opposite Party No.3 took almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. To prove her case, complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and photograph Ex.C8, affidavit of Sh.Charanjeet Singh Ex.C9/A alongwith expert report Ex.C10, photographs Ex.C11 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the allegations of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sahil Kumar Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs1,21/2 to Ex.OP1,2/4. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Amit Singh Brar Ex.OP3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/5 and thereafter, the Opposite Parties closed their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant purchased brand new car bearing Model Martui Celerio ZXI having Engine and Chassis No. 2105831-496112 and provisional Registration No.PB29-AB-0627 from Opposite Party No.3 which was manufactured by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for consideration of Rs.4,73,953/- vide Invoice No.002/VSL/17000792 dated 07.03.2018 with warranty card of the vehicle. Further alleges that on 16.04.2018, the complainant found that such short span of time of the purchase of vehicle, the rust has occurred to damage the roof/ shell/ car body of the new vehicle and rust had eaten the said vehicle then she alongwith her husband immediately approached the Opposite Party No.3 and they told that after repairing, said nwe3 vehicle rust problem will be solved. Further contended that on 17.04.2018 Opposite Party No.3 got repaired the vehicle by painting the colour on the roof of vehicle, but they did not tell the reason how rust is occurred within a very short span of its purchase. Not only this, even colour which the Opposite Party No.3 painted on the roof of the car did not match properly with the white colour of the vehicle and due to this reason, the vehicle of the complainant look ugly. Thereafter, the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.3 about the problem, but they did not listen. Thereafter, the complainant on 20.04.2018 wrote a complaint to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 informing about the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and also informed about the status and result of the repair made by Opposite Party No.3. Thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 called the complainant and assured to solve the rust problem in the vehicle and thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 gave the copy of the job card to the complainant on 20.04.2018 after getting the signatures of the complainant on various papers with excuse that same were required for it, but Opposite Party No.3 mentioned the date 20.04.2018 on it wrongly instead of 17.04.2018 which also unfair trade practice committed by Opposite Party No.3. As such, the material used in manufacturing for such car shell/ body by the Opposite Parties was lacking in quality, purity and strength and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is reputed company and such defect in a short span of time after the purchase of new car, is not expected in its product and due to substandard material used, the rust is occurred in the vehicle of the complainant and hence, contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. It is contended that the alleged problem of rusting was reported to the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 on 20.04.2018. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that there were scratches on the roof which was due to external reasons/ impact. Moreover, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 sell its product to its authorised dealer and the relationship between the answering Opposite Party and the dealer is that of Principal to Principal only as per the dealership agreement executed between the Opposite Parties. The complainant entered into an independent transaction for the purchase of the vehicle in question with Opposite Party No.3 to which the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were neither party nor received any consideration for the same and the complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 as far as the alleged transaction of sale is concerned. It is denied that the rusting had occurred on roof/ shell/ body of the vehicle and rust had eaten the vehicle or that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle or that Opposite Party No.3 painted the roof of the vehicle but the colour did not match. Moreover, the answering Opposite Party has been using the ultra technical equipment and robot in its paint shop during the paint process of the vehicle. The vehicle so manufactured by it passes through various stages in paint process, which is a worldwide accepted ultra-method for painting of a body shell. The car forming subject matter of the present complaint was manufactured in the State of the Art plant of answering Opposite Party where the painting process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of robots. The painting of the car is a lengthy and exhaustive process taking approximately 8 hours during which the car body travels more than 3 Kms on a conveyor. Before doing actual painting, car body goes through pre-treatment process. This is followed by first coat of paint called Electro Deposition (ED) soluble paint. Paint is deposited on the car body in the same manner as electroplating operation. The car body is one electrode and tank is another electrode and high electric current is passed through. This process ensures uniform paint thickness on each and every part of the car body shell. After this coat of paint, car body goes to ED oven. This is followed by other process known as sealer application, under coat application and stone guard proofing. After the Ed coating, the body shell is ready for the next coat of paint called Intermediate Coat. This coat is applied manually using spray guns. This is followed by baking of the car body in Intermediate Coat oven. After Intermediate Coat, Wet Sanding is done, in which wet sand papers are used to remove ay dust particles on the car body. After wet sanding the car body goes to Wet Sanding Dry Off Oven so that car body is totally dry before it goes for final coat of paint. This final coat of paint is applied by combination of manual spray painting and automatic painting guns. This coat of colour gives the glossy finish to the Maruti Car. After giving the top coat, the car body goes through top coat oven. In all the ovens mentioned above car body is baked upto temperature of 160 degree Celsius. All these ovens run on natural gas from Bombay. The top coat process if followed by inspection and touch up. In order to maintain paint quality, paint shop has been sealed from all sides and entry of paint shop is allowed only to paint shop employees. The maximum permissible dust level in paint booths is 5 microns (thickness of human hair is 90 microns. The vehicles are painted in batches. It can be inferred that there is no manufacturing defect in the paint process, quality of paint or material. Till date several lakhs of vehicles have been manufactured and sold, which also signifies the highest grade of materials used in the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle is prone to rust or defect, if any used/ plied or stored properly and the corrosion depends on several external factors and environment conditions.
9. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 also contended that admittedly, the complainant had purchased new vehicle on 07.03.2018 Celerio ZXI vide Invoice No.002/VSL/17000792 dated 07.03.2018 and the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfectly new and good condition after thoroughly satisfying her by checking the vehicle from interior and exterior. It was later only that the said vehicle of the complainant suffer the alleged small scratch on the roof to due to negligence of the complainant herself. Moreover, it was the duty of the complainant to have pointed out any defect in the vehicle at the time of taking the delivery and should have refused to accept the same at the time of delivery. However, it is out of sheer goodwill that the Opposite Party No.3 has repaired/ painted the said car roof without charging anything from the complainant to her complete satisfaction. Now the complainant has concocted a false story that the vehicle in question was already damaged before delivery, only to harass and blackmail the Opposite Party No.3.
10. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased new vehicle on 07.03.2018 Celerio ZXI vide Invoice No.002/VSL/17000792 dated 07.03.2018. It is also not disputed that within a very short span of about 1½ months from the date its purchase i.e. 20.04.2018, the complainant found that there were scratches on the roof of the new purchased vehicle. It is also not disputed that Opposite Party No.3 got repaired the vehicle by painting the colour on the roof of vehicle, however without telling the reason how rust is occurred within a very short span of its purchase. It is the case of the Opposite Party No.3 that as a goodwell gesture, they repaired the vehicle by painting the colour on the roof of vehicle without charging any amount. The case of the complainant is that even after repainting the colour on the roof of the vehicle, still there is rust of scratches on the roof of the new purchased vehicle. However, on the other hand, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has specifically mentioned in its reply and duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Sahil Kumar Territory Service Manager, Ex.OP1,2/1 that the vehicle was inspected and it was observed that the scratches on the roof were due to external impact/ reasons and not due to any defect. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and nobody can expect that within a very short span of 1 ½ months from the date of purchase of new vehicle by the complainant, such type of the negligence suck like rust of scratches on the body of the new vehicle occurred. The case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that the complainant herself caused such type of the rust of scratches on the new vehicle negligently and now blaming the Opposite Party No.3 in this regard. But nobody would cause such type of the negligence himself/ herself knowingly by rusting the scratches specially on the roof of the new vehicle at his/ her own by spending hefty hard earned money. Moreover, we are of the view that if there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complainant would have cause loss to her newly purchased vehicle, they why the complainant indulged herself in such type of the litigation by filing the instant complaint by spending huge amount by paying the counsel fee and other expenses. On the other hand, Opposite Parties have failed to prove any rivalry or any other reason or ill will with the complainant to lodge a consumer complaint against them without any reason. Further, the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, but certainly, there must be negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 as contended by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that the scratches on the roof were due to external impact/ reasons and hence we are of the view that due to the lack on the part of Opposite Party No.3, the rust of scratches on the roof were caused in the new purchased vehicle of the complainant while parking in the showroom or while loading or unloading the new vehicles in their showroom and not due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 and on this count, Opposite Parties must be burdened with reasonable compensation.
11. Now come to the quantum of compensation. The complainant has claimed Rs. 3 lakhs on account of mental tension/ agony, financial and physical harassment caused by the Opposite Parties besides replacement of vehicle in question. The prayer for replacement of the vehicle with new one is declined because the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question by producing any cogent and convincing evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, observed in so many cases that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as 1993 SCC (1) 397 between "Indian Oil Corporation V/S Consumer Protection Council has took note that no role or wrong-doing was attributed to the dealer. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note that no role or wrong-doing was attributed to the appellant before the District Forum in the instant matter. Further, commenting on the principal-to-principal relation between the appellant and the second respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision in Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala.5 In Indian Oil Corporation, it was held that in a principal-to-principal contract, Indian Oil could not be held liable for its distributor's unauthorised acts. Since there was no privity of contract between Indian Oil and the consumer, no 'deficiency' as defined under Section 2(g) arose against Indian Oil. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further relied upon the decision in General Motors (I) (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat6 to hold that a claim had to be specifically pleaded before the court for it to be adjudicated upon. In General Motors, it was held that where the party did not plead for a relief, the National Commission was wrong in awarding the same.
On the facts of the instant case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the record established an absolute dearth of pleadings from the first respondent concerning the appellant's role or special knowledge about the alleged misrepresentation. The lack of any pleadings on the appellant's involvement was held to be fatal to the complaint of the first respondent. The findings of the National Commission on the appellant were held to be unjustified. It was observed that the first respondent's failure to plead or prove the appellant's liability could not be improved upon through inferential findings as it were in case of the decisions of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that unless the appellant's knowledge was proven, a decision fastening the liability upon it would be untenable, primarily when the appellant and the first respondent were operating on a principal-to-principal basis.
Hon'ble National Commission on the point has also held that the relations between the manufacturer and the dealer are not 'Master and Agent' but that is on 'principle to principle' basis and he has submitted judgments in Revision Petition No. 674/2004 in between "Maruti Udyog Ltd. V/S Nagender Prasad Sinha & Another", Revision Petition No. 675/2004 in between "Maruti Udyog Ltd. V/S Nand Kumar Singh & Another", Revision Petition No. 676/2004 in between "Maruti Udyog Ltd. V/S Dinesh Prasad Singh & Another" and Revision Petition No. 677/2004 in 10 (CC/12/84) between "Maruti Udyog Ltd. V/S Avadh Kishore Singh & Another". In view of these judgments, it is very clear that relation between manufacturer and the dealer are not of 'Master and Agent' but they are on the basis of 'principle to principle' basis. Hence, it is to be accepted that manufacturer is not liable for the act of the dealer. Further with regard to the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
12. In views of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.3 is directed to make the lump sum compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the instant complaint i.e. 08.05.2018 till its actual realization. However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
13. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 20.12.2021.
