Delhi

East Delhi

CC/412/2016

KAPIL CHAPRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 412/16

 

Shri Kapil Chopra

S/o Shri Subhash Chand Chopra

R/o 99, New Lahore, Shastri Nagar

Delhi – 110 031                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

Head Off.: 1, Nelson Mandela Road

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070         

 

2. M/s. Bagga Link Motors Pvt. Ltd.

395, Patparganj Industrial Area

New Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Apollo Tyres Ltd.

Apollo House

7, Industrial Area,Sector-32,

Gurgaon – 122 001                                                          …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 09.08.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 30.07.2018

Judgement Passed on: 10.08.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Kapil Chopra against Maruti Suzuki India Limited (OP-1), M/s. Bagga Link Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and Apollo Tyres Ltd. (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant purchased a Maruti Wagon R (CNG) LXI model car bearing registration No. DL-14-CC-6448 from        M/s. Bagga Link Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) on 09.05.2016. 

            On the very next day, the complainant noticed that the car was not running properly due to defective wheel alignment/balancing.  He visited the service station of OP-2 on 11.05.2016, but did not get satisfactory response.  On 21.05.2016, he spent Rs. 300/- for leakage of air in one tyre, but was assured by the supervisor of OP-2 that there was no defect in the vehicle. 

            It was stated that on 24.05.2016, the complainant got his car serviced from OP-2 as per schedule and was informed by the supervisor that there was some defect in wheel alignment/balancing of car.  Further on 02.07.2016, the complainant had to pay Rs. 617.25/- due to air leakage from tyres and 2 valves. 

            The complainant visited the office of OP-2 and OP-3 many a times for rectification of faults, but all in vain.  Complaint no. CBGBIK89 and complaint no, 3246523667 was lodged with OP-3 and OP-1 respectively on 04.07.2016.  On 13.07.2016, an engineer from OP-3 told the complainant that the problem related to tyre fitment and suggested to get three tyres replaced on payment of Rs. 2,700/-.

            Legal notice of dated 21.07.2016 was served by the complainant which was neither replied nor complied.

            It was further stated that the complainant was harassed mentally, physically and financially by OP no. 1 to 3.  Hence, he has prayed for direction to OPs to rectify the faults of the vehicle in question or to pay     Rs. 5,20,000/- towards the cost of vehicle and Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation on account of mental, physical and financial agony. 

             The complainant has annexed copy of retail invoice (Annex. A), copy of registration certificate (Annex. B), copy of service job card / bill (Annex.C), copy of wheel alignment test (Annex. D), copy of feedback reply (Annex. E), copy of bank statement (Annex. F), copy of report of engineer (Annex. G), copy of email dated 06.07.2016 (Annex. H), copy of email dated 08.07.2016 (Annex. I) and copy of postal receipts (Annex. J).

 3.        OP-1 filed their written statement upon service of notice where they took various pleas in their defence such as the complainant neither took the vehicle to the workshop of OP-2 nor OP-2 made alleged representation.  The alleged problem might have arisen due to wrong fitment of tyres by local mechanic and the problem was due to improper air pressure in the types of the vehicle which was rectified and normal service was carried out.  Other facts have also been denied.

            OP-2 failed to file WS despite opportunity and ultimately they were proceeded ex-parte.

            OP-3, Apollo Tyres, filed their reply stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyres; warranty was only for manufacturing defect in its product and the same as per policy the product was replaced on pro-rata basis only.

4.       Rejoinder to WS on behalf of OP-1 and OP-3 respectively was filed by the complainant where the contents of WS were denied and those of complainant were reiterated.    

5.         The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where he has got himself examined.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of invoice no. VSL16000297 dated 09.05.2016 (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of receipt dated 09.05.2016 (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of job card dated 24.05.2016 (Ex.CW-1/3 colly.), copy of report of dated 24.05.2016 (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of letter dated 26.05.2016 issued by OP-1 (Ex.CW-1/5 colly.), copy of bank statement (Ex.CW-1/6), copy of inspection report of dated 04.07.2016 (Ex.CW-1/7), copy of reply of complaint by OP-2 (Ex.CW-1/8), copy of complaint dated 08.07.2016 (Ex.CW-1/9) and copy of legal notice dated 21.07.2016 (Ex.CW-1/10).

            In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri Rohit Kumar Gupta, Territory Service Manager of OP-1, who has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of warranty policy (Annex.R-1/1) and copy of job card and report dated 24.05.2016 (Annex.R-1/2 & 1/3). 

          OP-3 did not file their evidence despite opportunity.

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2. Perusal of the material placed on record shows that the complainant has stated that defective fitment of tyres resulted in air leakage and wobbling due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle which was on part of OP-1.  He has relied on Ex.CW1/7, which is the inspection report dated 04.07.2016.  If we have a look at the product inspection report where it has been stated “3 tyre got puncture Repair; there is no manufacturing defect; air leakage from tyre due to not proper fitment”.  It is clear that the tyres got “punctured” which is not due to the manufacturing defect. 

            As far as allegations of deficiency in service against OP-1, 2 and 3 are concerned, complainant has placed nothing on record to establish that the air leakage in the tyre was due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle manufactured by OP-1 and at the same time no independent expert opinion is filed to show that tyres had manufacturing defect which were manufactured by OP-3.  Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President