BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 463 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 02.08.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 25.04.2011 |
Jaswant Rai Sub Inspector Chandigarh Police s/o Late Sh.Kishan Chand r/o H.No.2821-B, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., Sector 18, Gurgaon through its Managing Director. 2. Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd., 112-113, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its General Manger. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Y.M.Bhagirath, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Parmod Kumar, Adv. for OP No.1 Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Advocate for OP No.2. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Jaswant Rai has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Maruti Alto Car from OP-2 on 19.04.2010 for Rs.2,69,000/- and thereafter got it insured and also got it registered vide registration No.CH-44T-1033. It is the case of the complainant that he got it financed for Rs.2.15 lacs from Axis Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh and the rest amount was paid by him in cash. The complainant is paying monthly installments of Rs.4700/- towards the loan amount. It is alleged that on 27.04.2010, the complainant went to Jallandhar from where he proceeded to Pounta Sahib (HP) and came back to Jallandhar on 28.04.2010. It is the allegation of the complainant that on way back from Pounta Sahib to Jallandhar on 28.04.2010, the radiator of the car got leaked and as such the coolant came out, consequently, the vehicle got heat up. It is further the case of the complainant that on 29.04.2010, the vehicle was brought to the workshop (OP-2) where some parts of the car were changed. OP-2 gave assurance that the vehicle is O.K. and free from any defect. The complainant further alleged that on 23.05.2010, he along with his family went to Sector 43, Bus Stand, Chandigarh to drop his guests. It is the allegation of the complainant that the coolant of the vehicle again leaked so the vehicle got heat up. He informed OP-2, upon which, a mechanic came to the spot and took the vehicle to the workshop and again changed the radiator cap. It is further the allegation of the complainant that on 16.06.2010, he went to Hoshiarpur along with his family members to attend the family function. The radiator of the car again leaked and coolant came out, so the car got heat up, as such the agency of Hoshairpur Automobiles, Hoshiarpur (Authorized dealers of the Maruti) was informed who replaced the radiator and assured that the vehicle is absolutely free from any defect. It is the grouse of the complainant that he had to suffer lot of mental agony and harassment because of the persistent defects. As per the complainant, the said defect in the vehicle is inherent and due to frequent leakage of the coolant, the engine of the car must have got affected. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 29.06.2010 upon the OPs and the reply to the notice was found to be frivolous, hence, this complaint. 2. In the written reply filed OP-1, it has been pleaded that the vehicles manufactured by OP has to undergo several processes of statutory (government) approvals and compliances apart from internal research and development and the vehicle in question has already undergone all the checks and only then Final Check OK was given before dispatching it to OP-2; that the warranty terms are part of sale contract and binding on the parties; that as per the clause 2 of the said warranty policy, if any defect(s) is found in a Maruti vehicle within the term stipulated above, Maruti’s only obligation to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no manufacturing defect in the vehicle or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the dismissal of the complaint has been prayed. 3. In its reply, OP-2 has pleaded that the complainant had taken the delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and its performance and the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant after carrying out pre-delivery inspection by the dealer. It has been denied that the complainant has experienced any problem in the vehicle on 27.04.2010, 23.05.2010 and 16.06.2010 as alleged in the complaint. According to the OP-2, the bill produced by the complainant is dated 17.06.2010 which does not shows the replacement of the radiator. It has been pleaded that vehicle had covered 6266 kms till 04.10.2010 and the engine of the vehicle is in perfect condition and there is no inbuilt defect in the vehicle. It has been specifically replied that without any expert evidence, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question is suffering form any manufacturing defect. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the defect in the car has been rectified by the OPs as is evident from the job card at page No.12 issued by Hoshairpur Automobiles, Hoshiarpur. The said fact was also admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments. Annexure R-1/3 is the warranty policy and under the heading “Maruti’s Warranty Obligation” it has been stated that if any defect(s) should be found in a Maruti vehicle within the term stipulated above, Maruti’s only obligation to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour…..” 7. Now it is clear from Maruti’s Warranty Obligation referred to above that the Maruti is under obligation to repair or replace the defective part with a new one at no cost. In the instance case, as already stated and conceded by the learned counsel for the complainant, the radiator of the car in question has been replaced by Hoshairpur Automobiles, Hoshiapur free of costs. Therefore, we are of the opinion that OPs have not violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. 8. The complainant has filed the present complaint with a prayer that the vehicle in question may be replaced with new one or in the alternative he is entitled to Rs.5 lacs as compensation. Undisputedly, it is not the case of the complainant that there is any inherent or manufacturing defect in the vehicle, so the complainant has no right to ask the OPs to replace the car with a new one. 9. The matter does not rest here. So much so, the complainant has not produced any expert evidence on the file to prove that the vehicle in question requires replacement due to some inherent or manufacturing defect. Reliance placed on IV (2009) CPJ 144 (NC) titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Casino Dias and another. The OPs have replaced the radiator of the car with a new one free of costs. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 10. As result of the above discussion, this complaint is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | | Sd/- | 25.04.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | | (P.D.Goel) | Cm | Member | | | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
