Haryana

Jind

121/13

Lekraj Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.K Gautam

05 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 121 of 2013
                            Date of institution:-30.5.2013
                            Date of decision:-5.5.2016
Lakh Raj Sharma son of Sh. Ram Sarup resident of house No.1824 Urban Estate, Jind-126102.
                                       ..Complainant.
Versus
Maruti Suzuki India ltd. plot No.1 Nellson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 through its Agency/Dealer Akans Motors, Safidon road, Jind.
Jagmohan Motors Ltd. Maruti Authorized dealer, Sonepat road, Rohtak-124001.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam Gurgaon road, Gurgaon 122015 through its dealer Akans Motors, Safidon road, Jind.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Manager NIC branch office, Jind(insurer of car No. HR-31F-4902 vide its cover note No.3510103112131809169 date of issue 11.8.2012)
Pasco Automobiles Pasco house-6 Palam Gurgaon road, Industrial Estate, Gurgaon-122015. 

                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.  

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. Deepak Jain, Adv.for opposite party No.1 &3.
        Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            Opposite party No.4 already ex-parte. 
            Opposite party No.5 already given up.
  
            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                   …2…
Order:-
         Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a Maruti Swift Diesel Car bearing registration No. HR31F-4902 for a sum of Rs.5,64,721/-from opposite party No.2 which has been delivered by opposite party No.1 at Jind. At the time of purchase the company has issued certificate of extended warranty registration dated 19.8.2010 for 3 years which is valid upto 18.8.2013 or up to 60000 Kms. The complainant had paid extra premium to the opposite party for extended 3 years warranty. The above said vehicle was having initial manufacturing defect in its engine as the engine was producing heavy sound and some time its sound become unbearable and some time the sound minimize itself and many a times the vehicle did not start on first instance. The complainant made four free services in different service station but the defect of the vehicle was not removed by the authorized dealers. It is stated that on 7.1.2013 in the morning when he tried to start the vehicle in question which did not get start and complainant informed the opposite party No.1 regarding the defect of his vehicle. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant to inform the opposite party No.2 regarding the defect of vehicle. The vehicle was shift in the workshop of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 told the complainant that engine was making huge sound and told that the engine was defective one which was to be replaced with a new one by the company. The engine of the vehicle of the complainant was replaced and handed over an illegal bill of 
            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                   …3…
Rs.1,10,499/-dated 21.1.2013 to the complainant and complainant deposited the above said amount with the opposite party No.2. The complainant served a legal notice dated 12.2.2013 through his counsel Sh. N.K. Gautam Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed  that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,10,499/- with interest @24% p.a., a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   
3.    Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 have filed the joint written statement stating therein that the complainant drive the vehicle in water logged area whereupon water entered into the engine assembly of the vehicle and consequential damage was caused to the engine. During inspection, starter motor was found damaged and connecting rods of 3rd & 4th cylinder were found bent which clearly substantiate a case of ‘hydrostatic lock’. The repairs are not covered under warranty as per terms clause 4 (e) & (h) and to be carried out on chargeable basis. The complainant to his entire will and volition gave his consent to the workshop to carry repairs on paid basis. The vehicle in question is defect free and in perfect OK condition at the time of sale.  All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with heavy cost is prayed for.

            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                   …4…
4.    Opposite party No.2 stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is stated that the complainant brought his vehicle in his workshop on 8.1.2013 and it was observed while inspecting the problem of vehicle that there was water logging/hydro locking in the engine of vehicle due to the carelessness of the complainant and it was due to use of spurious diesel oil i.e. oil mixed with water as such it is violation of terms and condition of the warranty policy of the company and the answering opposite party has rightly charged the amount of Rs.1,10,499/- from the complainant on account of replacement of engine of the vehicle. The half engine assembly of vehicle of complainant was changed vide bill dated 21.1.2013 for Rs.1,10,499/- and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 18.1.2013, a sum of Rs.80,499/- was paid on 21.1.2013 but the remaining amount of Rs.13,959/-dated 18.1.2013 was not paid by the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of legal notice dated 12.2.2013 Ex. C-2, copy of bill Ex. C-3, copy of letter dated 21.1.2013 Ex. C-4, copy of temporary registration certificate Ex. C-5, copy of delivery challan Ex. C-6, copies of receipt Ex. C-7 and C-8, copy of invoice Ex. C-9, copy of 
            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                   …5…
sale certificate Ex. C-10, copy of form-22 Ex. C-11, copy of certificate of extended warranty registration Ex. C-12, copy of schedule Ex. C-13,  copies of bill Ex. C-14 to Ex. C-18, pending payment Ex. C-19 and postal receipt Ex. C-20 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have produced the affidavit of Sh. Amandeep Singh Ex. OP-1, copy of dealership agreement Ex. OP-2 and copy of warranty policy Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.4 has produced the affidavit of Jai Bhagwan Rohila, Personal Manager Ex. OP-4, authorized letter Ex. OP-5, copy of vehicle history Ex. OP-6, copy of warranty policy Ex. OP-7, copy of inspection and maintenance Ex. OP-8, copy of letter dated 12.1.2013 Ex. OP-9, copies of bill Ex. OP-10 to Ex. OP-13 and copy of sale certificate Ex. OP-14 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard the arguments of all the parties and perused the file placed on record. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased the Maruti Swift Diesel Car from opposite party No.2 which has been delivered by opposite party No.1 at Jind and the opposite party company has issued certificate of extended warranty of 3 years i.e. up to 18.8.2013 or up to 60000 Kms. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that on 7.1.2013 the vehicle in question did not start and the complainant made a complaint with opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 after inspection of the vehicle replaced the engine and illegally charged an 

            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                   …6…
amount of Rs.1,10,499/-. However, the vehicle of the complainant is under warranty. 
6.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant drive the vehicle in water logged area where upon the water entered into the engine assembly of the vehicle and consequential damage was caused to the engine due to negligency of the complainant and as per warranty clause 4 (e) and( h) the repair is not covered and to be carried out on chargeable basis. He further argued that the opposite parties have rightly charged a sum of Rs.1,10,499/- from the complainant.  
7.    At the outset, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was in warranty period. The first question raised before us that this Forum got no territorial jurisdiction. The opposite parties No.1 and 3 had not denied in their written statement that Akans Motors, Safidon road Jind is not their authorized dealer and as per Section 11(2)of Consumer Protection Act when the Company is running its business for gain and profits through its dealer at Jind then this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. The second question arise before us that whether the engine of the vehicle in question having manufacturing defect or the defect occurred in the engine due to the negligence of the complainant while driving the vehicle in water lodged area. The objection of the opposite party is that the complainant drive the vehicle in water lodged area resulting water entering in the engine assembly of the vehicle for which the 
            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                   …7…
damage caused in the engine. It is worthwhile to mention here that the vehicle was parked at the premises of opposite party No.2 by the complainant on 8.1.2013 and the opposite party No.2 has repaired the vehicle on 21.1.2013. The opposite party’s vide Email dated 12.1.2013 and 14.1.2013 (Ex.OP-9) specifically mentioned at No.5 of inspection report that no water traces in intake system. Apart this as per serial no. 7(b) of inspection report its engineer dated 14.1.2013 of  Jagmohan Motors Ltd. Rohtak addressed to Mr. Gunjan Malik for approval  for half engine accessories of vehicle in question  mentioning that ‘no any sign observed regarding entry of water in engine’.  Beside this we are of the view that now a days engine of the vehicle manufacturer by the company is sealed one and water cannot be entered in the engine assembly.  Meaning thereby this Forum is of the view that the plea taken by the opposite party’s is vague and vehicle do not get damaged due to entering of water in the engine.
8.    No doubt, the vehicle in question  was under extended warranty period  so the opposite parties are not entitled to repair the vehicle on charge basis. However, the opposite party No.2 has charged Rs.1,10,499/- (Ex.C-3 dated 21.1.2013) from the complainant which is illegal. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.2 and 3 is proved. 
9.    In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant directing the opposite party No.2 to refund an amount of Rs.1,10,499/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of 
            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                   …8…
the complaint i.e. 30.5.2013 till its actual realization. The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. However, the opposite party No.2 is at liberty to recover the amount from opposite party No.3 i.e. Company  being the  manufacturer of the vehicle as there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The order be compliacned within one month from the date of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 5.5.2016
                                President,
   Member          Member           District Consumer Disputes                                    Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Lekh Raj Vs. Maruti Suzuki etc.
                
Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. Deepak Jain, Adv.for opposite party No.1 &3.
        Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            Opposite party No.4 already ex-parte. 
            Opposite party No.5 already given up.

                Arguments heard.  To come up on  5.5.2016 for orders.
                                        President,
        Member             Member                                DCDRF/Jind
                                        3.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. Deepak Jain, Adv.for opposite party No.1 &3.
        Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            Opposite party No.4 already ex-parte. 
            Opposite party No.5 already given up.

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                                     President,
        Member             Member                                DCDRF/Jind
                                        5.5.2016