Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/381/2017

ARUN TANDON - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

         (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

 

  Case File  No                177/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution    06-08-2016

 Date of Decision          26-02-2018

 

Arun Tandon,

S/O Sh.K.L.Tandon,

R/O Pl;ot No.204 Shopping Centre,

Bakshi Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

               V/S

1.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Through its General Manager

Regional Office North-2,SCO, 39-040,

Sector-8-C Madhya Marg ,Chandigarh-160008.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Through  General Manager Jammu Motors Pvt.Ltd.

6,Akhnoor Road,Jammu-180016.

3. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd.Manager of Peaks,

  Auto Pvt.Ltd.NH-1-A,Opp.Army School,

Kaluchak (Jammu).

                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

      

Complainant in person present

Mr.K.D.S.Kotwal & Rajdeep Singh Thakur Advocates for OP1,present.

Mr.Rajiv Chopra,Advocate for OP2,present.                                    

Nemo for OP3.

                                                                 ORDER

                          Shorn of unnecessary details, allegation of complainant is that, he purchased Maruti Swift Dzire VDI Car bearing registration No.JK02BH-2838,Engine No.2395447 Chasis No.579028 from OP3 on,08-08-2014,photocopy of RC is annexed as Annexure-A and the warranty was provided for a period of 24 months or for a distance of 40000 kms whichever is earlier, photocopy of warranty is annexed as Annexure-B.According to complainant he had serviced the vehicle in time and third service was done at Jammu Motors, Canal Road, Jammu on,27-11-2015.That during the warranty period the vehicle developed defects in its Horn and starting problem, complainant without wasting any time brought the said defect in the notice of Ops on,25-05-2016 and also approached OP2 for removal of defects, who diagnosed that the vehicle is having battery defect, the Op2 charged the battery, but still the defect continued and complainant was left with no option but to left the vehicle with OP2 for removal of defect permanently and OP2 sent the battery to workshop for rectification of defect and for making necessary repairs and it was found that the problem faced in the vehicle does not pertain to battery fault. Allegation of complainant is that even after the battery was set right, the vehicle continued to have starting defect, the OP2 thereafter changed the battery by replacing t he original battery with another battery, but defect still persisted, therefore, finding no alternative complainant took the vehicle to Srinagar on, 06-06-2016 and got it checked at Srinagar Peaks Auto at Srinagar, because the vehicle was again having starting problem. At Srinagar its filter was changed, but still then problem continued and engine was not started, complainant made a payment of Rs.484/-to Peak Auto Srinagar for removal of defect, but all in vain. Complainant further submitted that with great difficulty retuned back to Jammu and the vehicle was shown to OP2 and accordingly complainant handed over the vehicle to OP2 so that the defect of starting gets removed permanently and the vehicle is still with OP 2 and complainant believed that the Ops will remove the defect and a defect free vehicle will be provided to him, but till date it has not been done and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and un-fair trade practice. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays for a direction to Ops to provide him a fresh defect free vehicle of same type or refund of entire sale consideration of vehicle alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of purchase and in addition also prays for compensation of Rs.2.50 lacs including litigation charges.

                           On the other hand,OP1 filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that the present complaint is without cause of action against the answering OP.It is submitted that the obligation of answering OP under the warranty is which is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific as set out in the Warranty Policy(Clause 3)as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. The answering OP is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e.2 years or 40,000 kms,whichever is earlier, from the date of sale. The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitation as set out in Owner’s manual and service booklet. The answering OP have duly discharged its obligation as per terms and conditions. The complainant failed to set out any specific allegation in the present complaint against the OP and does not fall within the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that there is no neglect or default on the part of answering OP that there is no neglect or default on the part of answering OP of any nature. The complainant is trying to get unwarranted gains by filing this vexatious complaint before this Forum. The Op1 further submitted that the vehicle in question was sold on,28-07-2014,hence the warranty for the said vehicle concluded on,28-07-2016 by efflux of time. It is submitted that the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP2 on,25-05-2016 at 25,519 kms where the battery of the said vehicle was found drained out. The battery was charged and after starting the vehicle, it was delivered to complainant .It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP2 on,29-05-2016 at 25.619 kms and engine not starting was reported. Upon inspection no starting problem was found. The gravity was found low,therefore,service battery was fitted in the vehicle and vehicle was then sent to Peaks Auto, Srinagar on,06-06-2016 at 26245 kms.and again the same problem was reported and it was advised to complainant that MOL  Function light needs checkup but complainant refused the same for the reasons best known to him. The complainant sent the vehicle to workshop of OP2 on,14—07-2016 at 27,488 kms.the vehicle was repaired as per the terms and conditions of warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complete satisfaction of complainant as is evident from satisfaction note date 20-07-2016 duly signed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP No.2 on,23-07-2016 at 27,649 kms and starting problem was reported, upon inspection main relay jack was fund loose which was adjusted properly. It is further submitted that as per Clause 3 of warranty,OP1’s obligation as manufacturer is specific 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,when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable  to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by this warranty.

                  At the same time,OP2 filed written versions  and resisted the complaint on the ground that the customer reported to the workshop of answering OP on,25-05-2016,a technician was sent to the residence of complainant on the same day and the battery of his vehicle was found out to be drained out. After starting the vehicle it was delivered to the complainant. That on,29-05-2016  complainant visited the workshop of OP and a service battery was installed in his vehicle. After charging the battery, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. That on,14-07-2016 complainant visited and after inspection it was kept in the workshop for observation. After repair on,18-07-2016 ,vehicle was delivered to the complainant .After taking feed back from the complainant on,20-07-2016 job card was closed on,21-07-2016.That on 23-07-2016 complainant again visited OP’s workshop. The complainant was offered a loaner car as the vehicle had to be properly checked up .After rectifying the vehicle on,14-08-2016 the vehicle was delivered to the complainant After taking feedback the job card was closed on,21-08-2016.Lastly it is prayed that complaint may be dismissed with costs.

            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Ajay Kumar and Sonika Tandon.Complainant has placed on record copies of vehicle history, copy of job card, copy of certificate of registration, copy of vehicle details and copy of warranty policy.

        On the other hand,OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Jaspreet Singh Area Service Manager of OP1.OP1 has placed on record copy of warranty policy  and copies of job cards ,collectively.

               At the same time,OP2 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn  evidence affidavit of Ali Hussain Executive.

             We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                   Briefly stated grievance of complainant is that: he purchased Maruti Swift Dzire VDI Car bearing registration No.JK02BH-2838,Engine No.2395447 Chasis No.579028 from OP3 on,08-08-2014, and the warranty was provided for a period of 24 months or for a distance of 40000 kms whichever is earlier, but during the period of warranty, the vehicle developed defects in its horn and starting problem, complainant without wasting any time brought the said defect in the notice of Ops on,25-05-2016 and also approached OP2 for removal of defects, who diagnosed that the vehicle is having battery defect, the Op2 charged the battery, but still the defect continued and complainant was left with no option but to left the vehicle with OP2 for removal of defect permanently and OP2 sent the battery to workshop for rectification of defect and for making necessary repairs and it was found that the problem faced in the vehicle does not pertain to battery fault. Allegation of complainant is that even after the battery was set right, the vehicle continued to have starting defect, OP2 thereafter changed the battery by replacing the original battery with another battery, but defect still persisted, therefore, finding no alternative complainant took the vehicle to Srinagar on, 06-06-2016 and got it checked at Srinagar Peaks Auto at Srinagar, because the vehicle was again having starting problem. At Srinagar its filter was changed, but still then problem continued and engine was not started, complainant made a payment of Rs.484/-to Peak Auto Srinagar for removal of defect, but all in vain. Complainant further submitted that with great difficulty retuned back to Jammu and the vehicle was shown to OP2 and accordingly complainant handed over the vehicle to OP2, so that the defect of starting gets removed permanently and the vehicle is still with OP 2 and complainant believed that the Ops will remove the defect and a defect free vehicle will be provided to him, but till date it has not been done and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and un-fair trade practice. Hence the present complaint.

                           On the other hand, OP1 filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that the present complaint is without cause of action against the answering OP.It is submitted that the obligation of answering OP under the warranty is which is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific as set out in the Warranty Policy (Clause 3) as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. The answering OP is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e.2 years or 40,000 kms,whichever is earlier, from the date of sale. The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitation as set out in Owner’s manual and service booklet. The answering OP have duly discharged its obligation as per terms and conditions. The complainant failed to set out any specific allegation in the present complaint against the OP and does not fall within the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that there is no neglect or default on the part of answering OP  that there is no neglect or default on the part of answering OP of any nature. The complainant is trying to get unwarranted gains by filing this vexatious complaint before this Forum. The Op1 further submitted that the vehicle in question was sold on,28-07-2014,hence the warranty for the said vehicle concluded on,28-07-2016 by efflux of time. It is submitted that the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP2 on,25-05-2016 at 25,519 kms where the battery of the said vehicle was found drained out. The battery was charged and after starting the vehicle, it was delivered to complainant .It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP2 on,29-05-2016 at 25.619 kms and engine not starting was reported. Upon inspection no starting problem was found. The gravity was found low,therefore,service battery was fitted in the vehicle and vehicle was then sent to Peaks Auto, Srinagar on,06-06-2016 at 26245 kms.and again the same problem was reported and it was advised to complainant that MOL  Function light needs checkup but complainant refused the same for the reasons best known to him. The complainant sent the vehicle to workshop of OP2 on,14—07-2016 at 27,488 kms.the vehicle was repaired as per the terms and conditions of warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complete satisfaction of complainant as is evident from satisfaction note date 20-07-2016 duly signed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP No.2 on,23-07-2016 at 27,649 kms and starting problem was reported, upon inspection main relay jack was fund loose which was adjusted properly. It is further submitted that as per Clause 3 of warranty,OP1’s obligation as manufacturer is specific 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,when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable  to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by this warranty.

                  At the same time,OP2 filed written versions  and resisted the complaint on the ground that the customer reported to the workshop of answering OP on,25-05-2016,a technician was sent to the residence of complainant on the same day and the battery of his vehicle was found out to be drained out. After starting the vehicle it was delivered to the complainant. That on,29-05-2016  complainant visited the workshop of OP and a service battery was installed in his vehicle. After charging the battery, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. That on,14-07-2016 complainant visited and after inspection it was kept in the workshop for observation. After repair on,18-07-2016 ,vehicle was delivered to the complainant .After taking feedback from the complainant on,20-07-2016 job card was closed on,21-07-2016.That on 23-07-2016 complainant again visited OP’s workshop. The complainant was offered a loaner car as the vehicle had to be properly checked up .After rectifying the vehicle on,14-08-2016 the vehicle was delivered to the complainant After taking feedback the job card was closed on,21-08-2016.Lastly it is prayed that complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                                Before heading further, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings,therefore,we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

                 Be that as it may, it is the duty of OP2 to provide after sale service, including, to repair the vehicle in question with utmost promptitude and in accordance with terms and conditions of warranty/sale.

                        L/C for complainant placed reliance on judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Himachal Pradesh in case titled Pardeep Kumar Khurana ,Optical House,Main Market,Paonta Sahib V/S M/S Wheels World 126-B,Staff Road,Ambala Cantt.where in it is held as under

                Consumer Protection Act,1986 Sections 2(1)and 17 Purchase of car-Defect-Un fair trade practice -The  complainant resident doctor of Paonta Sahib purchased a Montana Car from respondent having its office at Ambala-When he was taking his car from Paonta Sahib(Himachal Pradesh) to Ambala the differential cage of car was broke out-Opposite party replaced the defective  part but demanded a bill of Rs.16,000/-though defect had occurred within warranty period-The car was detained for four years against non payment of bill of Rs.16,000/-Held act of opposite party is clearly a deficiency in service causing loss to complainant in his profession-Repelling the objection regarding limitation and territorial jurisdiction raised by opposite party it was held that complainant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.30,000/-in lump sum alongwith interest on  Rs.82,000/-at the rate of 18% per annum for four years of detention of car-Complaint allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/-

                         Here we would like to refer to the judgment of  Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in a case titled,Maruti Udyog Limited v/s Charanjit Singh,wherein their lordship has been pleased to  held in para 3 as under

               3.The District Consumer Forum after considering the original job cards Annexure A-1 to A-11, Affidavit of the complainant, evidence of the OP,vehicle history card 1 to 3 Annex A-20 and the affidavit of the OP No.1  nd 3,repelled the contention of the Ops and held that the vehicle had manufacturing defects which could not be rectified after repeated repairs and directed the OP No.3 to replace the defected car and also to pay as compensation Rs.10,000/-besides cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/-against OP No.3 alone.

 

                            After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being Consumer as per the purport of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion complaint is allowed and Ops are directed either to replace the vehicle with a new one or refund the cost of vehicle to the complainant. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-The Ops shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                                    President

26-02-2018                                                           District Consumer Forum

                                                                                                        Jammu.

Agreed by                                                                

 

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member