Haryana

Karnal

CC/226/2020

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki Prvate Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Yadav

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 226 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.30.06.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:19.09.2023

 

Amit Kumar aged about 38 years son of Shri Hukam Chand, resident of Sandhala P.O. Gumthala, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. Aadhar card no.2227 6671 6743

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Maruti Suzuki Pvt.Ltd., Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj-II New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

2. M/s Karnal Motors, authorized Maruti Dealer, showroom and workshop, 71/3, Milestone, NH-1, Karnal through its Managing Director.

 

3. Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj-II, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Vikas Yadav, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Ashok Vohra, counsel for the OPs no.1 and 3.

                   Shri Vishal Kundi, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has purchased a Maruti Swift VXI bearing registration no.HR-02AM-7507 from the authorized dealer of the OP no.1 in March, 2017. The value of the said car was Rs.5,99,000/- and at the time of purchase of said car the authorized dealer of OP no.1 allured the complainant to pay Rs.50000/- more and the company will extend the warranty of said vehicle for a further period of five years. Accordingly, complainant paid total Rs.6,50,000/- and got extended the warranty of said vehicle for a period of five years and at present said vehicle is under warranty. At the time of sale of said vehicle the OP no.1 handed over a pamphlet to the complainant in which the risk covers under the said policy are mentioned. At clause no.2 it specifically mentioned that “Engine Protect-Secures you in case of damage to Engine/Gear box and internal components arising due to water ingression/leakage of lubricant oil/coolant, consequential losses”. It is further averred that complainant got insured the said vehicle form OP no.3, who is sister concern of OP no.1. After purchase of said car, complainant started using the same and he has so far used 14000Kms only. All the times the complainant got serviced is vehicle from OPs no.1 and 2. On 18.05.2020, complainant while using the said vehicle was coming from Yamuna Nagar to Karnal and when he reached near Chorpura, then at once said vehicle started giving problem and he took the said vehicle to the workshop of OP no.2, who is authorized dealer of OP no.1. OP no.2 after examination of said vehicle of assured the complainant that everything will be set right but it would take 3-4 days. On 23.05.2020, OP no.2 wrote a letter to the complainant stating therein that the failure in vehicle is due to hydrostatic condition which is not covered under the manufacturing fault hence the repair cannot be covered under extended warranty. The same can be carried out on paid basis. The said plea taken by the OP no.2 is totally illegal, null and void because in the extended warranty broucher, it is specifically mentioned that Engine Protect-Secures you in case of damage to Engine/Gear box and internal components arising due to water ingression/leakage of lubricant oil/coolant, consequential losses. Meaning, thereby, that the entire engine is protected under said extended policy. Even in the job sheet the OP no.2 stated that the said vehicle is having leakage which too is covered under said policy. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs no.1 and 2 and requested to repair the said vehicle as the abovesaid problem covered under the extended warranty but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. On 01.06.2020, OP no.2 gave estimate of Rs.35,808/- to the complainant for repairing of said vehicle and asked the complainant that if he wanted to get the said vehicle repaired then he will have to pay the said amount in advance. It is further averred that the need of vehicle for his daily routine and he is ready to furnish indemnity bond or bank guarantee regarding the aforesaid amount of Rs.35808/- till the decision of this case. If from the facts it would be found that the OPs no.1 and 2 are entitled for the said amount then same can be released to them and if it would be found that the OPs no.1 and 2 are not entitled for that amount, then complainant would be entitled to get back his said amount but OPs did not listen the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle in question sent to the workshop of OP no.2 on 20.05.2020 and engine not starting was reported as demanded repairs by the complainant. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that the damages to the vehicle in question was due to water entry in the engine cause Hydrostatic Lock. The repairs for the same are not covered under warranty as per clause 4(h) as enumerated in the Owner’s Manual being negligence on the part of the complainant. Due to this reason, the repairs could not be covered under the ambit of warranty and had to be carried out on paid basis, as the repairs were outside the ambit of warranty. OPs communicated to the complainant vide letters dated 22.05.2020, 16.06.2020 and 24.07.2020 and approval was sought for carrying out the necessary repairs but complainant did not provide the approval for the same. It is denied that at the time of purchase the vehicle from OP no.1, OP no.1 handed over a pamphlet to the complainant wherein the risk covered under the policy is stated i.e. engine protect which secured the damage to engine in case of water ingression/leakage of lubricant oil/coolant as alleged. Complainant made a false and concocted story in order to obtain undue gains from the OP. It is further pleaded that complainant to his own will and volition purchased the extended warranty and the OP was not privy to the said transaction between the complainant and the authorized dealership. Complainant neither purchased the vehicle in question from the OP nor paid any consideration to the OP. It is submitted that the alleged clause 2 related to engine protect has nowhere been stated in the extended warranty terms and conditions. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             On 01.04.2021, learned counsel for OP no.2 has suffered a statement that written statement filed by OP no.1 be read as written statement on behalf of OP no.2.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP neither manufactured nor insured the vehicle in question nor is the workshop wherein the allegedly damaged vehicle was taken for repairs. The complainant neither entered into any contractual obligation with OP, nor complainant has hired any service for consideration from the OP. The impleading of OP to the present complaint is absolutely frivolous and vexation act on the part of the complainant. It is further pleaded that OP is an insurance broking entity licensed by IRDAI. The role of the OP being a facilitator, is to apprise the customer about the features and benefits of motor insurance products offered by various insurance company. After this facilitation, customer buy insurance as per their own will and pay insurance premium which goes to the concerned insurance company only. OP has no role to play in the present matter in dispute and name of this OP is liable to be deleted from the array of parties. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel or the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 23.05.2020 by Karnal Motors Ex.C1, copy of covered item under warranty Ex.C2, copy of RC Ex.C3, copy of previous RC Ex.C4, copy of insurance policy Ex.C5, copy of job card Ex.C6, photographs Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 14.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surendra Srivastava Ex.RW1/A, copy of certificate of renewal registration Ex.R1, copy of renewal of licence Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 10.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has suffered a statement that evidence lead by OPs no.1 and 3 be read as evidence  behalf of OP no.2.

 9.            We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.              In the month of March, 2017, complainant purchased a car from the OP No.1 with the extended warranty of five years and paid extra Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of extended warranty. On 18.05.2020, the car of the complainant started giving problem and he took the vehicle in the workshop. The OP No.2, after examination of the said vehicle told that the problem in the vehicle is due to hydrostatic condition which is not covered under manufacturing fault, hence, the repair cannot be covered under extended warranty and gave estimate of Rs.35,808/-.

11.           The onus to prove his version was upon the complainant. The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file “commonly used Add on Covers” Ex.C2, wherein the clause of Engine Protection has been specifically mentioned, which is reproduced as under:

2. Engine Protect- Secures you in case of damage to Engine/ Gear Box and internal components arising due to water ingression/leakage of lubrication oil/ collant, consequential losses.

12.           On the other hand, the OPs failed to place on file any terms and conditions, from which it can be gathered that the problem which was occurred in the car does not cover under warranty. It is not the case of the OPs that they have explained and sent the alleged terms and conditions to the complainant. Complainant has got extended the warranty for the five years by paying Rs.50000/- to OP no.2. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs is having no force.

13.           Vide order dated 14.08.2020, this Commission has directed the complainant to pay 50% of the repairing amount and also directed the OP No.2 to repair the vehicle in question on receipt of the said amount and handover the vehicle to the complainant. Both the parties had complied  the said order.

14.           Since, the problem in the vehicle in question has occurred during the warranty period and OP No.2 has refused to rectify the problem of vehicle of the complainant without any cogent and justified reason, hence, the act of OP No.2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 15.          Complainant has paid Rs.17,900/- to the OP No.2, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount from the OP No.2 alongwith compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to refund the amount of Rs.17900/-to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complaint qua OPs No. 1 and 3 stands dismissed. It is made clear if the abovesaid amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announced of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 19.09.2023

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

             (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                   Member                  Member