Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/339/2017

KUNAL GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL GOEL

08 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

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

                                                         

 Case File  No.                   151/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution        12-07-2016

 Date of Decision             04-09-2018

 

Kunal Goel,

S/O Sh.Ravinder Goel,

R/O H.No.21 C/C Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                            Complainant

              V/S

1.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

 Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj,New Delhi-110070

Through its Manager/Incharge.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

  Regional Office SCO 39-40,

 Sec.8-C Madhya Marg,Chandigarh 160018,

Through its Manager/Incharge.

3.Vehicleades Authorised Dealer/Service Provider,

    Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.NH 1 Bye Pass,Jammu

  Through its Workshop Manager.

4. Peaks Auto Kunjwani Jammu

    Service Provider Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

Through its Workshop Manager.

                                                               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.

      

Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate for complainant, present

Ms.Aruna Thakur,Advocate for OP1&2,present.

Mr.R.P.Jamwal,Advocate for OP3,present.

Nemo for OP4.

                                

                                           ORDER

                            Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant is said to have purchased a White Colour Maruti Swift Dzire VDI bearing registration No.JK02BB/2941 manufactured by OP1 &2 from the authorized dealer at Jammu. According to complainant the vehicle in question met with an accident in the month of July, 2013 as a result whereof the bonnet, front bumper and left side fender of the vehicle got damaged. That the complainant brought the vehicle for its body repair to the authorized workshop of the Company at Jammu, where the vehicle was repaired and painted by the said authorized service provider, the entire detail of repair/paint job is mentioned in the vehicle history. That the vehicle after the body repair and paint job was delivered to complainant after few days in the month of July, 2013.Allegation of complainant is that after few months of the painting job done to his vehicle, he felt that the newly painted side of the vehicle  is loosing its glass, he approached service centre/workshop of OP1&2,including Shauraya Motors Vehicleades and also Peaks Auto ,however, the incharge of the service centre suggested regular polishing of the car body and assured that the paint gloss shall restore after few sessions. Complainant further submitted that as advised he used the best quality polish  over his vehicle, which wax policy were of famous formula 1 waxpol and 3M,but even the use of the polish of the best quality could not improve the paint gloss and in July,2014 the paint of the vehicle which earlier had just lost a bit of its shine, now started to become dull and fade in its shade and even since then in Mid July,2014,he regularly approaching all the service centre of the company i.e.Shaurya Motors,Vehicleades and Peaks Autos with the complaint of bad quality of paint work done on his vehicle, but the attendants manage to do away with him on the pretext that the matter for repainting of the vehicle is being taken up with the company  and they would inform him shortly, but to his surprise no such intimation has ever been received by him. Complainant further submitted that colour of the repaired portion has become entirely different from the rest of the vehicle, the original company paint on the rest of the vehicle has maintained its original shade and gloss till date,however,it is only the portion painted by the authorized service providers of OPs 1&2 that has faded and the vehicle as on the date looks yellow from the front side and white from the rear side, giving a look as if it is a century old. Allegation of complainant is that he recently approached a private workshop engaged in the paint jobs of the vehicles and got checked the damaged paint, who told that a paint of inferior quality has been used on his vehicle, the incharge of the said workshop apprised him that these days paints of 2K quality are manufactured computerized and are of very high quality, they match even in metallic shades in such a manner that one cannot even differentiate the accidental paint jobs with the original paint. That the paint of the vehicle is totally damaged and for which the company and its authorized dealers and service providers are responsible, the company and its agents by using bad quality materials on the complainant’s vehicle have not only restored to un fair trade practice, but have also remained deficient in providing service to him. Constrained by the act of Ops complainant served a legal notice on the OPs 1&2 to called upon them to get the damaged paint of his vehicle repainted, but of no avail. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays for a direction to OPs to get repaint the vehicle on the damaged portion by using the original paint of goods quality, free of charge and in addition also prays for compensation of Rs.2.25 lacs on different grounds.

                    On the other hand,OPs 1&2 filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint without any material on record against OP.The complainant has failed to set out any case for deficiency in service as per Section 2(g) or un fair trade practice as per section 2(r) of the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act6,1987 The obligation of answering OP under the warranty is which is part and parcel of the sale transaction is specific as set out in the Warranty Clause{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,from the date of sale. The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in Owner’s manual & service booklet. It is submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum with a view to obtain undue gains. It is submitted that the complainant entered into a contract of sale of goods(Car) with OP1 and settled the terms and conditions of sale. The answering OP being the manufacturer of vehicle in question stands warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000 kms whichever event occurs from the date of delivery and the warranty is governed by the specific terms and conditions as set out in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. It is submitted that as admitted in the complaint the vehicle met with an accident in July,2013,The vehicle was sent to the workshop of Shaurya Motors,Sainik Colony,on,17-07-2013 for accidental repairs. The transaction of accidental repairs was between Shaurya Motors and the complainant to which the answering OP was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same. It is important to mention here that he leading automobiles manufacturer across the globe have been using the ultra modern technology in their pain process at their factory. The answering OP is one of the manufacturers using ultra-modern technology and equipment and robot in its paint shop during the paint process of a vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle so manufactured by it passes through various stages in pain process, which is a worldwide accepted ultra-method for painting of a body shell. The car forming subject matter of the present complaint was manufactured in the State of the Art plant of answering OP where the paint process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of robots. Rest of the contents of complaint are denied by OP1 &2.

              At the same time,OP3 filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that answering OP3 has been pleaded unnecessarily in this complaint although nothing has been complained against it. That the complaint is time barred. That there is no privity of contract between OP3 and the complainant. It has been mentioned as to from which dealer he purchased his vehicle. All the dealers of Maruti Suzuki in Jammu cannot be made party in a complaint filed against a particular agency. It has also been not stated as to when the vehicle was purchased. It has been stated as to who was driving the said vehicle at that time and place where this accident happened. Rest of the contents of complaint are denied.

                         On the other hand,OP4 despite service of notice through registered covers with acknowledgment due,but,OP4 did not choose to represent the case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, therefore the right of OP4 stands closed vide order dated 26-09-2016.

                            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record Certificate of Registration, copies of vehicle history, copies of mails exchanged between the parties and copy of legal notice.

                     On the other hand,OP1&2 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Prince Kumar Territory Service Manager(TSM)of OP1.

                  Although OP3 filed written version, but after availing numerous opportunities failed to lead any evidence, so, the right of OP3 to file evidence was closed vide order dated, 06-02-2018, Therefore, unsubstantiated averments contained in the written version of OP3 cannot overweigh the evidence lead by the complainant.

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

                     Briefly stated facts of case are that complainant is said to have purchased a White Colour Maruti Swift Dzire VDI bearing registration No.JK02BB/2941 manufactured by OP1 &2 from the authorized dealer at Jammu. According to complainant the vehicle in question met with an accident in the month of July, 2013 as a result whereof the bonnet, front bumper and left side fender of the vehicle got damaged. That the complainant brought the vehicle for its body repair to the authorized workshop of the Company at Jammu, where the vehicle was repaired and painted by the said authorized service provider, the entire detail of repair/paint job is mentioned in the vehicle history. That the vehicle after the body repair and paint job was delivered to complainant after few days in the month of July, 2013.Allegation of complainant is that after few months of the painting job done to his vehicle, he felt that the newly painted side of the vehicle  is loosing its glass, he approached service centre/workshop of OP1&2,including Shauraya Motors Vehicleades and also Peaks Auto ,however, the incharge of the service centre suggested regular polishing of the car body and assured that the paint gloss shall restore after few sessions. Complainant further submitted that as advised he used the best quality polish  over his vehicle, which wax policy were of famous formula 1 waxpol and 3M,but even the use of the polish of the best quality could not improve the paint gloss and in July,2014 the paint of the vehicle which earlier had just lost a bit of its shine, now started to become dull and fade in its shade and even since then in Mid July,2014,he regularly approaching all the service centre of the company i.e.Shaurya Motors,Vehicleades and Peaks Autos with the complaint of bad quality of paint work done on his vehicle, but the attendants manage to do away with him on the pretext that the matter for repainting of the vehicle is being taken up with the company  and they would inform him shortly, but to his surprise no such intimation has ever been received by him. Complainant further submitted that colour of the repaired portion has become entirely different from the rest of the vehicle, the original company paint on the rest of the vehicle has maintained its original shade and gloss till date,however,it is only the portion painted by the authorized service providers of OPs 1&2 that has faded and the vehicle as on the date looks yellow from the front side and white from the rear side, giving a look as if it is a century old. Allegation of complainant is that he recently approached a private workshop engaged in the paint jobs of the vehicles and got checked the damaged paint, who told that a paint of inferior quality has been used on his vehicle, the incharge of the said workshop apprised him that these days paints of 2K quality are manufactured computerized and are of very high quality, they match even in metallic shades in such a manner that one cannot even differentiate the accidental paint jobs with the original paint. That the paint of the vehicle is totally damaged and for which the company and its authorized dealers and service providers are responsible, the company and its agents by using bad quality materials on the complainant’s vehicle have not only restored to un fair trade practice, but have also remained deficient in providing service to him. Constrained by the act of Ops complainant served a legal notice on the OPs 1&2 to called upon them to get the damaged paint of his vehicle repainted, but of no avail.

                       On the other hand, stand of OPs 1&2 is that the obligation of answering OPs under the warranty is part and parcel of the sale transaction is specific as set out in the Warranty Clause{Clause 3}as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. The answering OPs are only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e.2 years or 40,000 kms,from the date of sale. The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in Owner’s manual & service booklet. It is submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum with a view to obtain undue gains. It is submitted that the complainant entered into a contract of sale of goods(Car) with OP1 and settled the terms and conditions of sale. The answering OPs being the manufacturer of vehicle in question stands warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000 kms whichever event occurs from the date of delivery and the warranty is governed by the specific terms and conditions as set out in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. It is submitted that as admitted in the complaint the vehicle met with an accident in July,2013,The vehicle was sent to the workshop of Shaurya Motors,Sainik Colony,on,17-07-2013 for accidental repairs. The transaction of accidental repairs was between Shaurya Motors and the complainant to which the answering OP was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same. It is important to mention here that he leading automobiles manufacturer across the globe have been using the ultra modern technology in their pain process at their factory. The answering OP is one of the manufacturers using ultra-modern technology and equipment and robot in its paint shop during the paint process of a vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle so manufactured by it passes through various stages in pain process, which is a worldwide accepted ultra-method for painting of a body shell. The car forming subject matter of the present complaint was manufactured in the State of the Art plant of answering OP where the paint process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of robots. Rest of the contents of complaint are denied by OP1 &2.

                              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.

                     L/C appearing for OP1&2 contended that answering OP being the manufacturer of vehicle in question stands warranty for a period  of 24 months or 40,000 kms whichever events occurs first from the date of delivery and the warranty is governed by the specific terms and conditions as set out in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. At the same time,L/C appearing for OP1&2 inter alia,would submit that transaction of accidental repairs was between the complainant and Shaurya Motors to which the answering OP was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same,therefore,complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party.

                         The burden to prove that complainant had repaired and painted the vehicle from the authorized workshop of OPs  was on complainant, but he failed to discharge the  initial onus, therefore, question of deficiency in service do not arise,resultantly,we are of the opinion that in view of failure of complainant to substantiate his allegations, renders the complaint perfunctnary and  tall tale story, unworthy of reliance.

                   In afore quoted back drop, complaint fails, accordingly, same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, parties are left to bear their own costs. File after its due compilation be consigned to records.

Order per President                                            (Khalil Choudhary)                               

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

04-09-2018                                                                    President

                                                                              District Consumer Forum

                                                                                      Jammu.

Agreed by                                                          

                                                                                      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                               

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member