Haryana

Ambala

CC/190/2013

SHAILENDER KHANA S/O SH JAI DEV - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI LTD - Opp.Party(s)

R.S SAINI

18 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                Complaint Case No. : 190 of 2013

                 Date of Institution    : 01-08-2013

                 Date of Decision      : 24-05-2017

 

Shailender Khanna son of Sh. Jai Dev, 105, The mall, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         The Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Maruti Udyog, Gurgaon.

2.         M/s Ekansh Wheels Ltd. through its Manager, Village Tepla, Distt. Ambala.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. R.S. Saini, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Keshav Sharma, counsel for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Udai Singh Chauhan, counsel for OP No.2.

                                   

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is a Govt. Contractor and takes contract to execute the Engineering the construction work of various Govt. department and he has to supervise the work taken by him on contract at different places and for this purpose he purchased a Swift car from OP No. 2 model-KD, chassis No. 485164 from OP No. 2 on 03-12-2009. The OP No. 2 told the complainant that he may have the facility of extended warranty of four ears by paying Rs. 4,995/- valid upto 02-12-2013 and for this complainant accepted the offer of the OP No. 2 and paid Rs. 4,995/-. It is submitted that just after purchase, the problem of noise from front suspension was found during the driving and working of the car. On which matter reported to the OP No. 2, accordingly car checked and OP No. 2 assured that he may use the car now and the said problem would not occurred again, but again the car developed the same problem and again it was brought to the notice of OP No. 2, who after the checking again gave the false assurance, same reply when again the car was put into the use, the same problem was again found, this happens several times and till today the OP No. 2 failed to remove the said problem in the car. The OP No. 2 told the complainant that this is a manufacturing defect and cannot be repaired by their mechanic. The complainant sent notices through his e-mail several times especially on 29-04-2012, 06-05-2012, 27-01-2013, 01-03-2013 and 14-04-2013 etc. to the opposite parties, but nothing has been heard from their side. The complainant sent legal notice dated 23-04-2013 through his counsel to the OPs and the same was received by the OPs, on which the complainant called along with his car. The complainant visited to OP No. 2, there some parts of the car were changed and assured that they have removed the defect of the card and charged money. But when he used the car, he faced the same problem in car. The complainant again sent a legal notice dated 24-06-2013 in addition to legal notice dated 23-04-2013 but the opposite parties never gave heeds on the complaints.  As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant and prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to change the suspension of the car or replace the defective car with new one, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of financial loss, Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental physical harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written reply by OP No. 1 raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts by complainant. On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle in question has been plied extensively for more than 70,958/- Kms as on 25-04-2013 in such a short span of time i.e. approx. 3 years of purchase. The warranty is for a period of 24 months or 40,000/- Kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner and extended further on payment of additional premium for 3^rd year or upto 60,000/- kms or 4^th year or 80,000/- from the date of sale of new car, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the complainant neither reported alleged problem at the time of obtaining 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free inspection service on 03-12-2009 at 2107kms. (1107 kms in excess violation of stipulated mileage of 1000 kms), 21-01-2010at 4981 and 29-03-2010 at 10,021 kms, respectively. It is submitted that the complainant has plied the vehicle very extensively for more than 71,000/-kms in very short span of time which itself refutes the averments made by the complainant. It is reiterated that the vehicle suffers hits and underbody damages when plied on damaged/broken roads rough surfaces and uneven pathes and potholes. Here it is pertinent to submit that would there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle could not have plied extensively for such a huge mileage in such a short span of time. It is submitted that the vehicle inspected by the expert service engineers of the workshop i.e. OP No. 2 on 07-03-2013 at 68,911 ks for the demanded repairs of noise from front. It is submitted that during inspection in presence of the complainant no abnormal noise was observed from the front portion of the vehicle and the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle to his entire satisfaction. The complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop of OP No. 2 for obtaining running repairs on 23-04-2013 at 70,165/- kms and caliper assembly R & L was replaced under extended warranty on FOC basis to satisfy the apprehension of the complainant. It is vehemently denied that the complainant was charged for replacement of alleged parts. The vehicle requires additional maintenance and care when plied extensively. The complainant is quite negligent and careless in proper maintenance of vehicle in question and is making hue and cry without any basis. It is further submitted that the OP No. 2 never received any legal notice.  As such, the Op has prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed.

                        Counsel for the OP No. 2 has  made a statement that the reply given by the OP No. 1, same be read as such in the reply on behalf of the OP No. 2.  

3.                     To prove their version, counsel for complainant tendered in   evidence affidavit of complainant and Vikas as Annex.CX and Annex. CY alongwith documents as Ex.C-1 to C-8 and closed his evidence.  Counsel for OP No.1 has made a statement that his reply, earlier given by him, be read as such in his evidence and closed the evidence. Counsel for OP No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashsih Bansal as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R2/1 to R2/2 and closed the evidence.  After closing the evidence of the parties, complainant moved an application seeking permission for additional evidence. The same was allowed vide order dated 18-05-2017, accordingly, he tendered the document annexure C9 i.e. bill of repair regarding disc caliper set. In rebuttal, opposite parties have tendered the R2/3 i.e. service record, annexure R2/4 and R2/5 job cards and closed his evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that after some time of purchasing of the vehicle, problem of noise from the front suspension was occurred and he approached to the opposite party No. 2 for rectification of the above said problem. On which mechanic has checked the vehicle and stated that the above said problem has been rectified and assured that the said problem would not be occurred again. But the said problem was not rectified despite several visits of the complainant to OP No. 2. Ultimately, he has to file the present complaint on 01-08-2013. During the pendency of the complaint, he has to change the disk caliber set vide Annexure C9 and incurred an amount of Rs. 6,665/- and prayed for refund of the said amount as well as compensation on account of harassment.

                        On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that as per service record of the vehicle in question since 03-12-2009 to 25-04-2013, there is no suspension problem shown in service record. According to the service record, as per visit No. 26 shows that in the column of demand repairs problem shown i.e. noise from the front EGR inter cooler clean, seat noise dated 23-04-2013 annexure R2/1 i.e. service record, the above said problem has been rectified and caliper accessory front brake, right side caliper accessory has been replaced. The estimate of spare part has been shown as Rs. 6,220/- and labour amount as Rs. 1966.3/- as per annexure R2/1 dated 23-04-2013 and but opposite party has charged only labour charges amounting to Rs. 1348/- as per Bill annexure R2/4 dated 23-04-2017. We have also gone through the history of the vehicle, as per the visit No. 27 dated 25-04-2013, in the column of demand repairs shows that abnormal voice. The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that if it is presumed that the complainant has replaced disc caliper set but it is not related to suspension problem. If the suspension problem exists then, the tyres of the vehicle would be damaged but such type of problem not reported by the complainant as proved by his history of visit record annexure R2/1 as well as R2/3 and R2/4. The complainant has also given his satisfaction note dated 25-04-2013 it means there is no suspension problem exist in the said vehicle. The opposite party has also placed on record annexure R2/3 i.e. visit history from 03-12-2009 to 15-07-2015. From the perusal of the above said visit history, shows that some problem has been shown in the vehicle has been rectified. The opposite party has also placed on record job card dated 13-09-2013, he visit another service centre of Ravi Motors, only engine oil was changed but there is nothing mentioned about any problem. He further visited to Punjab Motors on 13-02-2014 and there was only the work regarding break, A/c blower clean done and there is no other problem reported and again he visited on 29-03-2014. As per job card, there is nothing mentioned about the suspension problem. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Punjab Motors on 11-08-2014 and 08-10-2014 but there is no problem has been reported. We have also gone through the affidavit annexure CX of the complainant tendered in his evidence on 30-07-2015. A perusal of the affidavit annexure CX, suspension problem is not mentioned rather repair work regarding disc caliper set done on   08-03-2014.

                        So far the affidavit given by the Vikas Kohli, Mechanic Engineer regarding problem suspension as annexure CY, we have observed that it is procured one and has no value in eye of law, in view of the job cards as well as visit history of the vehicle as there is nowhere mentioning about the said problem.     

5.                     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled for any amount spent on his vehicle on 08-03-2014. As such complainant miserably failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 24.05.2017.                                               (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMEBR