BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No. 639 of 2014
Date of institution: 04.11.2014
Date of Decision: 20.05.2015
Dr. B.D. Sethi son of Shanu Ram, House No.3306/B, Gurudwara Road,
Rajpura Town, District Patiala through Dr. Sonu Sethi, resident of House No.514, Phase 3-B1, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
Maruti Suzuki situated at Stan Autos Plot No.C-147, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali and Ploy No.C-89, Phase-VII, Mohali.
………. Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Dr. Sonu Sethi, authorized representative the complainant.
Shri S.R. Bansal, counsel for the OP.
Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint through his authorized representative for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’):
(a) to repair the vehicle or refund him Rs.8,000/- charged by the OP.
(b) to pay him Rs.10,000/- as expenses spent as cost of petrol.
The complainant’s case is that he gave Maruti Wagon R Car to Dr. Sonu Sethi for driving and office use. Due to some defect the vehicle was taken to the OP for service on 10.07.2014 but after one week of service the vehicle had the problem which was existing earlier. The complainant informed the Manager of the OP who informed that the Gas Kit is not working property which needs to be changed. The complainant took his vehicle to the OP on 25.07.2014 but the gas kit was not changed. The complainant again took his vehicle to the OP in September, 2014 when the gas switch connection was removed from the vehicle and the vehicle is now running on petrol and the Manager told the complainant that the gas switch connection has been removed for detection of the problem. After 7-8 days the Manager of the OP told him that a part has to be arranged and cost of which is Rs.30,000/- to which the complainant showed his inability to pay. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The OP in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Gurgaon has not been impleaded as proper and necessary party. The vehicle in question is of Model 2007 and is out of warranty. The complainant B.D. Sethi never visited the workshop for any kind of repair. The vehicle was brought to the OP for three times i.e. firstly on 10.07.2014 and Arun Rana, Sr. Adviser of the OP has advised the occupant of the car Mr. Ghai about recommendation of Steering Assembly, Caliper Pin Assembly, LPG Kit Service, Wheel alignment and wheel balancing to which the customer refused. Hence no liability can be fastened on the OP. The occupant of the car visited the OP on 25.07.2014 for repair of kit of LPG Service and the same was done to the entire satisfaction of the occupant of the car. The job cards and the documents reflect that B.D. Sethi has sold the vehicle to some other person. The vehicle is out of warranty as it had covered more than one lakh KMs. The total repair cost of the vehicle was Rs.25,778.41 to which the complainant refused to pay. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle was not properly maintained to keep it road worthy. The vehicle was brought to it in non starting position. After attending it, everything was explained to the complainant and LPG kit assembly was recommended to be replaced to which the customer refused and the occupant of the car requested the service engineer of the OP to make the car in a starting position on petrol version. The vehicle was brought to it on 25.07.2014 and the necessary repair work was got done and the occupant took the delivery after signing the gate pass and satisfaction note on the job card. Thus, denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
4. Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Arun Rana, Sr. Service Engineer Ex.OP-1/1 & copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-5.
5. We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and gone through their written arguments.
6. Admittedly the car in dispute is running both on LPG and Petrol. During its usage the complainant faced problem in the LPG kit and approached the OP for getting necessary repairs. The vehicle was inspected by the OP and it recommended Steering Assembly, Caliper Pin Assembly, LPG Kit Service, Wheel alignment and wheel balancing and also for change of gas kit. The OP has undertaken the repairs of the parts recommended and has not changed the gas kit rather repaired the gas kit and charged Rs.3226/- from the complainant as is evident from job card/retail cash memo Ex.C-1. The grievance of the complainant is that once the OP has taken the money for repairing the gas kit, the effect of the repairs has not even lasted for 15 days and the gas kit has broken down again. Thus the complainant has alleged poor quality of repairs by the OP due to which he has suffered loss as now the gas kit is beyond repair and needs replacement for which the complainant is required to shell out Rs.30,000/- as per the estimate of the OP. Definitely the complainant has refused to pay the said estimated amount for replacement of the gas kit. On 25.07.2014 instead of giving a new LPG kit, the OP has repaired the gas kit and charged another amount of Rs.4499/- as is evident from job card/retail cash memo Ex.C-2. Thus, the complainant has unnecessarily been charged twice for repair of the gas kit and this act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
7. The receipt of payment of Rs.3226/- and Rs.4499/- vide Exs.C-1 and C-2 is not disputed by the OP. Perusal of Ex.C-1 and C-2 clearly reveals that there is no refusal by the complainant to get the LPG gas kit replaced against the recommendations of the OP. The recommendations of the OP on Ex.C-1 reveal as follow:
“Steering Assembly, Caliper Pin Assembly,
LPG Kit Service, Wheel alignment and
wheel balancing”
8. Therefore, the plea of the OP that the complainant refused to get the LPG kit replaced with the new one is ill founded. In fact on both the occasions i.e. on 10.07.2014 and 25.07.2014 the complainant has got the repairs done as per the recommendations of the OP and paid for the services rendered by the OP. Further the perusal of recommendations shows that no where the OP has recommended replacement of the gas kit. Rather it is astonishing from where the OP has made a service estimate of Rs.25,778/- without the permission and consent of the complainant. Once the OP has applied its mind and decided to repair the gas kit and charged for the same on two occasions i.e. on 10.07.2014 and 25.07.2014 there cannot be any shift of stand by the OP to say that the gas kit needs replacement. It means that the repairs have not been properly affected by the OP which led to breakdown of the gas kit leaving the complainant to use the vehicle only on petrol and depriving the complainant the facility of gas operated vehicle. If the gas kit was not repairable at the initial stage as to why the complainant was misled to believe that the gas kit is repairable and un-necessary he has been made to make the payment for repairs of the gas kit twice vide Ex.C-1 and C-2. Thus the act of the OP as stated above is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
9. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OP to:
(a) to refund to the complainant the repair charges of Rs.3226/-
and Rs.4499/- taken vide Exs.C-1 and C-2.
(b) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of
Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) on account of
mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
May 20, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
