Haryana

Karnal

CC/483/2024

Rajesh Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki Nexa - Opp.Party(s)

Raman Gupta

24 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.483 of 2024

                                                          Date of instt.07.10.2024

                                                          Date of Decision: 24.10.2024

 

Rajesh Bansal son of Shri Rameshwar Dass, resident of H.No.43, New Grain Market, Gharaunda, District Karnal, age 55 years.

 

          ...…Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. Maruti Suzuki Nexa, GT Road, Karnal, through its authorized person/Manager/Director.
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company, 3^rd Floor, SCF-55, Main Market Road, Sector-6, Karnal.

 

....Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before       Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.    

                Mrs.Neeru Agarwal……..Member

                Mrs. Sarvjeet Kaur…………Member

                               

Present:   Shri Raman Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                                                  

               Today the case is fixed consideration on the point of admissibility.

                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased a car Ciaz Smart Hybrid Delta bearing registration No.HR91A-9873 in the year 2019 from the OP No.1 with five year warrant. The said car was got insured from 11.09.2019.  From the very beginning the said car was having problem in ignition due to manufacturing defect. The problem was many times got repaired from OP No.1. On 19.04.2024, the car did not start and complainant leave the car in the workshop of OP No.1, where Engineers of OP No.1 disclosed that battery of vehicle is creating problem and it required to be replaced and complainant would have not to be paid because the same is covered under extended warranty. Complainant submit claim but the OP No.2 refused to replace the battery. Having no option, complainant got replaced the battery of car from Ruby Motor Karnal, for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. Complainant several times made request to pass his claim but OPs failed to do so. Hence, the present complaint.

                Arguments on the point of admissibility of complaint heard.

                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that despite  warranty the OPs did not replace the battery of car and having no other alternate the complainant had to replace the battery from Ruby Motor, Karnal by paying an amount of Rs.60,000/-. He further argued that after replacing the battery, again the complainant requested the OPs several times to pass his claim but they did not do so. Hence, prayed for issuance of notice to the OPs.

                A careful perusal of the file reveals alongwith the complaint, the complainant has not placed on file any proof with regard to warranty vide which the battery in question was also covered. Without warranty documents, the present complaint is not maintainable.

                Hence, in view the above facts the present complaint is hereby dismissed at the point of admissibility of complaint. However, complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action, if so desired after placing warranty proof/documents. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Dated: 24.10.2024.             

                         President,  

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

  (Neeru Agarwal)                (Sarvjeet Kaur) 

Member                           Member