BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 126 of 2015.
Date of Institution : 14.7.2015.
Date of Decision : 08.02.2017.
Satpal son of Shri Hakam Chand, resident of Arora Mohalla, Gali No.12, Mansa, District Mansa-151505.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070, through its Manager/ Director.
2. M/s Shakti Motors Private Ltd. Authorized Dealer, Maruti Suzuki, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner.
3. M/s Shakti Motors Private Ltd. Authorized Sub-Dealer, Chotala Road, Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized signatory.
4. M/s Tara Motor Private Limited, Authorized Sub-Dealer of Maruti Suzuki Barnala Road, Mansa, District Mansa (Punjab).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.N. Grover, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite parties No.2 & 4 exparte.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was to purchase Maruti Swift Dezire ZDI car for which he placed an order to op no.3 on 20.1.2015 and same was delivered to him vide invoice No.VSL14000560 dated 29.1.2015 against the total price of Rs.7,33685/- and it was assured to him that if there will be any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, then the same will be replaced with new one. However, from the very beginning the performance of engine of vehicle was not good and used to become hot after some kilometer and the vehicle was creating the problem of bubbling. At the time of getting first service from op no.4 on 11.3.2015, he complained to op no.4 about said problems and op no.4 assured him that after first service, these problems will be removed. It is further averred that after first service, the complainant noticed that above said problems still exists in the vehicle and on 12.4.2015 when he was going to attend the marriage of his relative, then all of a sudden a stray dog came in front of car. The car slightly hit into the dog and the front bumper of vehicle was slightly damaged. The complainant when got checked his vehicle from a private mechanic having vast experience, then he told him that front bumper of vehicle was found already repaired after denting and painting and colour of backside of bumper started showing discoloration due to erosion of layers and the side window of car was also found painted one. After that on 14.4.2015 at the time of getting second service, he complained to op no.4 about problems of engine heat, dis-colour and erosion of layers, bumper dented and painted but op no.4 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. The complainant also approached ops no.2 & 3 in this regard but to no effect. Thereafter, he complained the above said problems to all of the ops through e-mail vide complaint no.3580338840, but no satisfactory reply has been given and no action has been taken on his request. All the ops were aware of manufacturing defect in the vehicle at the time of sale. The complainant approached the ops time and again and requested them for replacement of vehicle with new one or to return the amount of Rs.7,33,686/- alongwith interest and also to pay amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as the expenses incurred by complainant on registration etc. but they did not consider his request. The complainant also got issued a legal notice upon the ops on 7.5.2015 but to no effect rather ops No.1 & 2 have given totally false and evasive reply of said notice. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing written statement asserting therein that answering op being the manufacturer of vehicle stands for warranty for a period of two years or 40,000 kms whichever is earlier from the date of delivery subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in the owner’s manual and service booklet. The dealer or its representative or agent cannot enlarge the scope of warranty as per clause 5. As per clause 3, the answering op’s only obligation is repair/ replace any part at its sole discretion shown to be defective free of charge if answering op acknowledge the defect is attributable to faulty material or poor workmanship at the time of manufacture. The complainant was given a brand new defect free car. Had there been any problem in the vehicle affecting the performance as alleged, then the vehicle would not have covered such a huge mileage of more than 14,380 Kms within eight months of purchase. The complainant was negligent for proper maintenance of vehicle in question as is evident from the vehicle history. As per maintenance schedule, the complainant was required to bring his vehicle for 1st routine maintenance service on completion of 1000 Kms. The complainant however sent the car for first service on completion of 1830 Kms which is clear violation of warranty condition. The complainant sought only routine maintenance 1st service on 11.3.2015 and did not point out any defect in the vehicle. Then he brought the vehicle to the workshop for second free service on 14.4.2015 but did not point out any defect in the vehicle. It is denied that vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect as alleged. Admittedly, the vehicle in question has been driven about 5000 kms. as on 12.4.2015 and also met with an accident on 12.4.2015 and front bumper got damaged. The complainant instead of getting the said bumper replaced on paid basis as accidental damage/repair are not covered under warranty, he has been building a false case with ulterior motives to obtain undue gain. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. OP no.3 filed written statement asserting that complainant has always availed the services from Mansa. He has enjoyed the benefit of first free service from Mansa and second service was also availed from Mansa. Then again he visited the service center at Mansa on 7.5.2015. Moreover, the complainant has never intimated the answering op regarding any such alleged problem or defect. As per computer generated record, no such defect was ever intimated to the service center nor any intimation in that regard was given to answering op. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
4. Opposite parties No.2 & 4 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, report Ex.C2, photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C8, copy of form 21 Ex.C9, copy of invoice Ex.C10, copy of form 22 Ex.C11, copy of form no.15 Ex.C12, copies of e-mails Ex.C13, Ex.C14, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C15, legal notice Ex.C16, postal receipts Ex.C17 to Ex.C30. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of dealership agreement Ex.R2, copy of warranty policy Ex.R3, OP no.3 tendered his affidavit Ex.R4, copy of postal receipt Ex.R5 and reply to legal notice Ex.R6.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The complainant has not proved his case by any reliable and cogent evidence. There is nothing on record to prove that vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant. Even the complainant has not produced affidavit of Private Mechanic who allegedly checked the vehicle and found that front bumper of vehicle was already repaired after denting and painting and side window of car was also found painted. According to op no.1, the vehicle has covered 14,380 Kms within 8 months of purchase and had there been any defect in the vehicle as alleged, it would not have covered such a distance. It is also admitted case that on 12.4.2015 a dog came in front of the car and front bumper of vehicle was damaged. According to op no.1, accidental damage/ repair are not covered under warranty. The complainant has not produced anything on file to show that he ever reported the alleged defects to the workshop of ops at the time of availing service of vehicle. The complainant could submit his claim to the insurance company for the damage to vehicle after accident but has failed to make out a case against the ops.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:08.02.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
