Date of filing:22.11.2012
Date of transfer: 16.06.2022
Date of order:19.10.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
WEDNESDAY THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINANT NO. 43/2022
Sheikh Nagoor Meeran,
No. 107, Malayathamman Koil Street,
Mannurpet,
Chennai – 600 050. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited,
Chennai Regional Office,
7thFloor, Capital Towers,
180 Kodambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3. M/s. ABT Maruti,
(A Division of ABT Ltd),
C-20, II Main Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. T. Ravikumar
Counsel for opposite parties-1 &2 : Thiru. S.Ramasubramaniam
Counsel for third opposite party : Thiru. P.R. Murali
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or in the alternative pay the cost of the vehicle Rs.5,72,000/- with interest from the date of purchase viz. and to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- medical charges for the opposite party incurred towards the treatment of cervical Disc disease, to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- damages for the mental agony caused for dragging the complainant to the police station, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- damages for physical stress and strain and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- charges for the damaged tyres and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- costs of litigation.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant purchased a Maruthi Swift VDI with ABS 5 IV car bearing chasis No. MA3FKEBIS00584781 and engine No. D13A14443966. The vehicle bears registration number TN-20-BS-4334. The date of purchase is 17.08.2010 and the vehicle has a conditional warranty of two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The complainant has been servicing his vehicle regularly with the opposite party. He had already completed 5 services. The complainant states that the vehicle is having an inherent problem right from the date of purchase viz., there is a drag of the left side. On 28.06.2011 the vehicle was given for 4th service to the opposite party and was delivered the next day with some defects in the steering wheel. The Steering wheel was rough and turning the vehicle was difficult. Hence, the complainant redelivered the vehicle on 28.08.2011 for repairs. Though it was claimed by the opposite party that the defects in the vehicle was rectified, but the same problem continued. As the problem of drag continued the vehicle was again left with the opposite party on 30.09.2011 and the staff represented the “Rock Pin” in the steering Box had tightened as a result the steering Box had Broken. Hence, the complainant was informed that the steering box itself to be replaced. This was not true and the problem still persists. The complainant left the vehicle with the opposite party on several occasions even without a job card hoping that the problem would be set right but the problem of drag on left side and the tough steering continued. Finally the problem was brought to the notice of Mr.Jagan, who represented the third opposite party. He promised to set things right for the complaint, but nothing useful except exchange of e-mails happened. On 09.12.2011 Mr. Jagan advised that the vehicle be serviced at Popular automobiles another service dealer but things did not improved there also. The vehicle was given for service with the opposite party on 09.01.2012 and was delivered on 27.01.2012. After 2 days the vehicle developed the same problem of tough steering and drag on the left side and by this time Mr.Jagan also started to evade the quarries of the complainant. The problem caused by the staff of the opposite party ended in this complaint with the Ambatur police station and after hearing both sides the Inspector of the police station finally understood the truth and asked the opposite party to rectify the problem. On 26.06.2012, the vehicle was given to CARS INDIA, and it was delivered back only on 11.07.2012. The vehicle ran well for 3 days but the problem of drag recurred. Because of the hard steering, the complainant also developed Cervical Disc Disease and the pain was radiating to the right shoulder. Hence, the opposite party had not only caused mental agony by dragging the complainant to the Police Station but also physical agony. Hence, the opposite party is liable to compensate for the said cause. Hence, this complaint.
2. The written version of first and second opposite parties areas follows:
The complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint on false allegations without any material on records against the answering opposite party. The complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs Under Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986. The vehicle in question is defect free and in perfect OK condition. Hence, the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as prescribed U/s 24-A of the Act. It is submitted that the complainant bought the vehicle on 17.08.2010 and the primary warranty of answering opposite party had concluded on 16.08.2012 upon efflux of time. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The complainant with malafide intentions did not implead M/s Crescent Auto Repairs & Services 9 CARS) India Pvt. Ltd., Ambattur as necessary party to the present case. The opposite parties discharged their warranty obligations and complainant has never been denied any warranty benefits which is rightly entitled to. The complainant with ulterior motive had been making demands which are beyond the scope of warranty and taking the shelter of this Hon’ble Forum and trying to put undue pressure on this opposite parties. The complainant has failed to place any material on records in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against the answering opposite parties. The complainant with an after-thought has filed this false and frivolous case despite extending best possible assistance / service to complainant as per the terms & conditions of warranty policy. The complaint is making purposeful use of the vehicle and has played the vehicle for more than 26,199 kms as on 28.06.2012. The complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings and liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act. All the vehicles so manufactured by answering opposite parties are duly approved by appropriate authority of Government of India (i.e., ARAI) after homologation test, considering all aspects of quality, safely & emission norms. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle manufactured by this opposite party under has ISO/TS16949 certification for maintaining international manufacturing standards. The vehicle in question has also undergone all the checks and only then FCOK (Final Check OK) was given by the answering opposite party before dispatching it to third opposite party. He said warranty terms are part of sale contract and are binding on both the parties. They said primary warranty for a period 24 months or 40,000/-kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. The complainant with an ill-motive to obtain undue gains and to exert legal pressure has filed this false and frivolous case against opposite party. It is submitted that this opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner. The complainant is distorting facts and has concocted a false story to mislead this Hon’ble Commission to obtain undue gains. Hence, on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
3. The written version of third opposite party is as follows:
The 3rdopposite party submits that after having gone through the various averments and contentions raised in the complaint herein, denies the same in it entirely excepting those that are specifically admitted hereunder. The contents in para 1 with regard to the purchase of the Maruti Swift VDI ABS 5 IV car bearing Chasis No. MA3FKEBIS00584781 and Engine No.D13A1443966 bearing registration No. TN 20 BS 4334 purchased by the complainant are true. The aspect of conditional warranty of two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle are all matters or record and such guarantee is subject to terms and conditions as specified in the warranty terms. The complainant’s vehicle has been sold and been driven by the complainant to his satisfaction without any problem whatsoever. The vehicle has undergone all the three mandated free services i.e. the first one on 20.09.2010 with odometer reading of 976 kilometers, the second one on 10.01.2011 with odometer reading of 4742 Kilometers, as per the warranty terms and is in a fit motorable condition. It is pertinent to point out that during these three free services applicable for one year from the date of purchase or 10,000/- Kilometers whichever is earlier there wasn’t any reported complaint about the vehicle. The contention that the vehicle is having an inherent problem right from the date of purchase viz., there is a drag of the left side are all absolutely false. The complaint ‘s vehicle was reported to the third opposite party workshop on 25.08.2011 with an odometer 15,612 meters with complaint of hard steering. Immediately the same was adjusted and thoroughly checked for any abnormalities and on testing the vehicle the performance of the steering was found very satisfactory and the vehicle the performance of the steering was found very satisfactory and the delivery of the serviced vehicle was taken back by the complaint on 26.08.2011 after completion of few others demand repairs. On 28.08.2011 the vehicle was again reported to the third opposite party’s workshop with a demanded of upholstery cleaning and it was not reported for a complaint of rough steering wheel and difficulty in turning as falsely alleged by the complainant. Again on 21.09.2011 the complainant brought the vehicle to the third opposite party’s workshop with the very same complaint of steering noise. By such time the odometer reading was 16,065 Kilometers. As and abundant caution it was advised that the steering box plunger needs replacement and the third opposite party requested the complainant to bring the said car as and when the said spare is made available for fitment. The Service Manager on 30.09.2011 by which time the odometer reading was 16361 Kilometers and by such time with the approval of the third opposite party’s principal namely Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., being the first and second opposite parties herein, as a special case, the third opposite party had replaced the complete steering box assembly and after undergoing road test along with the complainant, the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction on the very same day. The averment that the problem of dragging of the vehicle continued and the further averment that the staff represented that the rock pin in the steering box had tightened resulting in breakage of steering box are all false and these are all the complainant’s own imaginary averments. The first and second opposite party herein who are the third opposite party’s principal was called to inspect and certify the performance of the complainant’s car relating to steering complaint. The said representative thoroughly examined and certified that the working condition was perfect and the complaint had taken delivery of the car on 15.11.2011 and had given a satisfaction note to the third opposite party duly affixing his signature therein. The allegation that Mr.J. Jegan -Area Territory Manager of the first and second opposite parties herein had advised the complainant to take the vehicle to Popular Automobiles are all denied and the same is put to strict proof. As a matter of fact by a letter dated 18.11.2011 the said Mr. J.Jegan had given a letter certifying that there is no abnormality found in the complaint vehicle and that he vehicle is road worthy. As a matter of fact the complainant ought to pay to the third opposite party the cost of this litigation. There are absolutely no merits in the complaint. In the above circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the present complaint as frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merits with exemplary costs.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed, Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 were marked. Proof affidavit of opposite party filed.Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked. Written argument of both sides filed.
5.The points that of arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief complainant is entitled to?
6. Point Nos.1 & 2: The complainant purchased a Maruti Swift Car from the third opposite party on 17.08.2010. The said vehicle was registered with No.TN20BS 4334. The vehicle was manufactured by opposite parties 1 and 2. Further the said vehicle has a warranty of 2 years from the date of purchase. Further the purchase of the said vehicle had extended warranty upto 17.08.2014. The main allegation of the complainant is that the vehicle was dragging to the left side, further the steering was hardened within the warranty period. Further according to the complainant upto 3 free service, there was no problem in the vehicle, from 4th service the problem arises. The same was not disputed by third opposite party who is the dealer and authorised service centre of first and second opposite parties. But for the satisfaction of the complainant the third opposite party had replaced the complete steering box assembly and after taking road test along with the complainant, the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction on the very same day. For which the third opposite party relied upon the email of first opposite party dated 21.02.2012, they did not find any reply compalint from the complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party has rightly done their service and the complainant failed to prove that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Further, the complainant also failed to examine any expert to prove his case. On this ground as well the complainant is liable to be dismissed, with no cost. Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.
7.POINT NO.3: In Point Nos.1 and 2, we have decided that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
8. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 19th October 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-17.08.2010 – Copy of registration certificate
Ex.A2-23.08.2010 – Copy of Extended warranty
Ex.A3-04.06.2010 – Copy of Receipt
Ex.A4-10.08.2010 – Copy of Receipt
Ex.A5-12.08.2010 – Copy of Tax invoice
Ex.A6-20.09.2010 – Copy of job card memo
Ex.A7-10.01.2011 – Copy of job card memo
Ex.A8-20.05.2011 – Copy of job card memo
Ex.A9-26.08.2011 – Copy of job card memo
Ex.A10-28.08.2011–Copy of job card memo
Ex.A11-21.09.2011- Copy of job card memo
Ex.A12-30.09.2011- Copy of job card memo
Ex.A13-15.11.2011- Copy of job card memo
Ex.A14 - Copy of pre-invoice (service)
Ex.A15-01.12.2011- Copy of E-mail correspondence
Ex.A16-29.12.2011- Copy of E-mail correspondence
Ex.A17-07.01.2012- Copy of E-mail correspondence
Ex.A18-13.02.2012- Copy of E-mail correspondence
Ex.A19-21.02.2012- Copy of E-mail correspondence
Ex.A20-28.04.2012- Copy of notice
Ex.A21-06.08.2012- Copy of notice
Ex.A22 - Copy of Acknowledgements
Ex.A23-11.08.2012-Copy of reply notice
Ex.A24-02.09.2012-Copy of rejoinder with acknowledgements card
Ex.A25-17.12.2011-Copy of prescription by Bill Roth Hospital shoulder and Neck
pain
Ex.A26-16.05.2012-Prescription
Ex.A27-11.10.2012- Copy of the certificate for physiotherapy treatment
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1 – 12.11.2011 – Satisfaction note by complainant to the third opposite party
Ex.B2 – 18.11.2011 – Letter by third opposite party to complainant
Ex.B3 – 18.11.2011 – Letter by second opposite party to complainant
Ex.B4 – 07.12.2011 - E-mail Communications by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties
05.12.2011 } to the complainant.
01.12.2011 }
12.03.2011 }
Ex.B5 – 28.01.2012 – letter by second opposite party to complainant
Ex.B6 – 29.02.2012 – Complaint third opposite party to Ambattur Industrial Estate
Police Station
Ex.B7 – 01.03.2012 – Complaint receipt by Ambattur Industrial Estate Police Station
Ex.B8 – 20.09.2010 to
28.06.2012 – Complainant’s vehicle service history third
opposite party
Ex.B9 – 17.02.2012 – Video CD copy of the CCTV recorded footage by third
opposite party
Ex.B10 - - Audio CD recording the complainants verbal threats by third
opposite party
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
