DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.140 of 26-03-2010

Decided on 31-08-2010

Major N.Thiagarjan son of Late Sh. J.Nagarajan, resident of 10 CASSU C/o 56 APO, Bathinda Cantt.

 Punjab.

.......Complainant

Versus

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015 (Hry.) through its Managing Director.

2. Tara Automobiles, Opp. ITI, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Managing Partner.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.J.S.Walia, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1.

Sh.Amanpal Singh, counsel for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. In brief, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Maruti Zen LXI Estilo Car, bearing Chassis No.MA3EMDE-1S00247398, Engine No.K10BN 4017607 of Superior White-26U from the opposite parties vide Invoice No.VSL09001949 dated 30.12.2009 for a total sum of Rs.3,06,908/-. The complainant has purchased the aforesaid car after taking loan from State Bank of India and got it registered with District Transport Officer, Bathinda and has been allotted Registration No.PB-03U-6690 for his car. On 15.02.2010, the complainant had gone out of station and on the way, there was leakage in the oil sump in the said car. The car was taken to Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Jagadhari, authorized Service Station of Maruti Udyog Ltd. On examination of the car, in which almost entire Engine oil was leaked, the Service Engineers of the said Service Station conveyed that the oil sump of the Engine is required to be replaced but the same was not available with them. They fixed the said part with m-seal on temporary basis and replaced filter assay. The fresh engine oil was filled after charging Rs.1190/-. The very next day, the complainant took his aforesaid car to opposite party No.2 and asked them to replace the part but they conveyed that the part was not available with them and they have to demand the said part from opposite party No.1 and the car was returned back to the complainant without being repaired. The complainant took the car back to his house and kept it in the Garage to avoid further damage to the car. The complainant made several complaints to the opposite parties through e-mail and to Customer Care through Telephone but after 10 days, it was conveyed to the complainant by the opposite party No.2 through telephonic conversation that they have demanded a wrong spare part. Hence, they had to demand the said part again. After receiving an e-mail on 16.03.2010 by Tara Motors for availability of spare parts, the said part was replaced on 17.03.2010. The complainant alleged that he had to hire vehicle Rs.1500/- per day during this period and paid more than Rs.45,000/- as hire charges.

2. Both the parties have filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No.1 pleaded that the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle from the opposite party No.2 after repair to his entire satisfaction on 17.03.2010 by giving written satisfaction note in respect of vehicle in question to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 pleaded that as per record of opposite party No.2, the complainant brought the vehicle in question on 17.03.2010 for repairs/replacements. The vehicle in question was inspected by the Expert Mechanics at the workshop of opposite party No.2 in the presence of the complainant. After due inspection, it was noticed that the oil sump got damaged due to external hit to the body and the said fact was marked in Job Card and was acknowledged by the complainant. The same got damaged due to the negligence of the complainant. The alleged defect of damage to oil sump is not covered under Clause 4 of warranty policy as the same was a result of complainant’s own negligence due to external impact. The complainant entered an independent contract for alleged repairs/replacements with the opposite party No.2 and paid the consideration. The complainant took the delivery of vehicle after repair to his entire satisfaction as is evident from his signatures on the Job Card, invoice & gate pass. The complainant also took the road tests and executed a satisfaction note dated 17.03.2010 in favour of the opposite party No.2 which further substantiate that the repair jobs were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.

The opposite party No.2 in its separate written statement pleaded that the complainant has not impleaded M/s. Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Jagadari and in the absence of the said party, the complaint cannot be decided properly. It can only be replied by the said M/s. Pandit Automobiles, Jagadari about the factual position of the car. The opposite party No.2 also pleaded that the complainant had never approached nor reported any defect in the car in question on 16.02.2010 or even thereafter till 25.02.2010. The complainant for the first time contacted the opposite party No.2 on 25.02.2010 on telephone and told about the accident and asked the opposite party No.2 to come to his residence to check the vehicle. On receiving the phone call, the opposite party No.2 sent two employees namely Mr. Baljeet Singh Brar and Technician Mr. Azad Bhagat Singh who inspected the car, told the complainant that there is problem/defect in the oil sump and it needed to be replaced and to bring the car to the Service Station of the opposite party No.2 for necessary repair. After that, the opposite party No.2 sent e-mail to the complainant on 27.02.2010 and requested him to bring the car to the Service Station but the complainant failed to do so. The opposite party No.2 gave the order of necessary part to the opposite party No.1 on 06.03.2010. The opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the spare part required to be changed in his car has been ordered and assured him that he would be informed as and when the part would be received by the opposite party No.2. On 13.03.2010 and 16.03.2010 the opposite party No.2 informed the complainant about the same through e-mail. The complainant then came to the workshop of the opposite party No.2 on 17.03.2010 alongwith his car and the said oil sump was replaced by the opposite party No.2 on 17.03.2010 itself vide job card No.JC0900905 dated 17.03.2010. The complainant was also fully satisfied with the service provided by the opposite party No.2 and duly signed the satisfaction note on 17.03.2010.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by both the parties perused.

5. The complainant’s car Maruti Zen LXI Estilo bearing Chassis No.MA3EMDE1S00247398, Engine No.K10BN 4017607 of Superior White-26U bearing registration No.PB-03U-6690 developed leakage problem in the oil sump on 15.02.2010 which was taken to Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Jagadhari, authorized Service Station of Maruti Udyog Ltd. On examination, it was found that the entire Engine Oil was leaked. The Service Engineer of the said Service Station conveyed the complainant that oil sump of the Engine is required to be replaced but due to non-availability of the same, they fixed the said part with m-seal on temporary basis and replaced filter assay. When the complainant informed to the opposite party No.2, two employees namely Mr.Baljeet Singh Brar and Technician Mr. Azad Bhagat Singh were sent to the residence of the complainant to inspect the car in question, who detected the defect and advised for replacement of the part. As the part was not available with the opposite party No.2, they requested the opposite party No.1 to send the part to the opposite party No.2 vide Ex.C-8. The opposite party No.2 had mistakenly ordered the wrong part to the opposite party No.1, it through e-mail requested the complainant to bring the car to their service centre to clear the confusion of damages/defective part for proper ordering. This e-mail was sent to the complainant on 26.02.2010 in which the case description as under”-

“CM has purchased the car on 27.12.2009. There was leakage in the fuel pump while cm was on way to outstation in night. So he took the assistance from the maruti workshop over there on 15.02.2010 but they were not having the part so they fix it through m-seal for the temporary basis. Then on the very next day cm has taken his car to the workshop in his city they sent the request to the company for the spare the part was send to them but not of this car. So again workshop has sent the request Acc to cm why it is taking a long time for the availability of the car and the other thing is that workshop is asking for the charges why cm has to bear as it is under warranty. Car is lying in the garage. So cm want maruti to look in this matter.”

The complainant sent e-mail dated 11.03.2010 vide Ex.C-9 in which he had mentioned:-

“......I had sent the vehicle for permanent repair to Tara Motors on 16.02.2010. After the thorough inspection by the Tara Motors, they had said that they will demand the above said part from the Maruti due to non-availability of the spare and they will do the repair within 5-7 days.

For this 24 days, due to your poor service and non-availability of spares, I have used private car, since my own was in off road condition. Due to this, I landed with a loss of Rs.1500 everyday.......”

Again an e-mail dated 12.03.2010 vide Ex.C-10 was sent by Tara Automobiles which is reproduced as under:-

“In this regards we would like to inform you that oil sump is dispatched on 6th March 2010 from the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Gurgaon through GATTI transport and still in transit.”

One more e-mail send by the opposite party No.2 i.e.Tara Automobiles dated 16.03.2010 vide Ex.C-11 which is reproduced as under:-

“Once again you are requested that the spare part is available with us now kindly send your vehicle for said job.”

6. A perusal of the record placed on file and e-mails sent by the complainant as well as the opposite parties show that the vehicle developed defect on 15.02.2010 and the spare part was to be replaced, by the opposite party No.2 was not available with them. They have requested the opposite party No.1 to send the spare part to them. It was continuous process since ordering the spare part being asked from opposite party No.1, receiving it from opposite party No.1 and then informing the complainant. As manufacturing company is situated at Gurgaon, spare part was to be brought from Gurgaon to Bathinda through transportation. As soon as, the part was received by the opposite party No.2, it was replaced. In this regard, the satisfaction note was also signed by the complainant on 17.03.2010. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’

Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

31.08.2010 President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member