| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 286 of 25.7.2017 Decided on: 5.11.2020 Manjit Singh s/o Late Sh.Daler Singh, aged 56 yrs, r/o 14-F,Tripuri Town, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., through its MD/President,1, nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
- Hira Automobiles Ltd., through their workshop Manager and Vice President, available at Factory Area, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY For the complainant: Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi, counsel for complainant. For OP No.1: Sh.J.K.Garg, counsel for OP No.1. For OP No.2: Sh.Rakesh Kumar Garg, counsel for OP No.2 ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Manjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Maruti Suzuki and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Maruti Suzuki “Zen LX MPI” which he bought on 29.4.2008 . The complainant was getting serviced the car from time to time from OP No.2.
- It is averred that he got serviced the car from OP No.2 on 14.2.2016.At that time the car had clocked/run 1,22,660KMs. The OP No.2 replaced ‘strut assy frt suspension, strut assy fr susspn, bearing fr strut, Mount, front strut, Stopper from strut rebound seal, bush strut areasina’ and charged Rs.4059/-. After getting the car repaired, the complainant again started using the same .
- It is averred that in May,2017, the complainant again faced some problem in the car. He approached OP No.2 on 27.5.2017 where the engineer after inspecting the car informed the complainant that the front suspension has worn out and need to be replaced. At this complainant amazed as he got the same replaced only last year. It is clear that the OPs had used an inferior replacement in the car in question. The complainant got sent legal notice to both the OPs but to no avail. Further the OPs refused to entertain the grievances of the complainant on repeated visits. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
- Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to refund the charges incurred by the complainant on repair of the front suspensions of the car in question; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation jointly or severally and also to pay Rs.11000/-as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
- In the reply filed by OP No.1 preliminary have been raised to the extent that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as the complainant bought the vehicle in question from OP No.1on 29.4.2006 and the warranty stood concluded on 28.4.2008; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties; that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP; that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint; that the complaint is without cause of action.
- On merits it is submitted that the vehicle in question was sold on 29.4.2006 and not on 19.4.2008 as alleged by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant entered into an independent transaction for the purchase of the vehicle in question to which the OP was neither privy nor reserved any consideration for the same. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was sent to workshop of OP No.2 on 14.2.2016 at 1,13,870Kms i.e. after more than 8 years after the conclusion of warranty, therefore, the complainant entered into an independent transaction for repairs with OP No.2,hence no obligation was left to be performed on the part of OP. It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of Op No.2 on 27.5.2017 at 1,48,330kms.The vehicle had been plied for more than 20,000 kms in a span on 14 months, which clearly indicates that the vehicle was being used purposefully and extensively by the complainant.
- I t is further submitted that reply to the legal notice was duly given vide letter dated 15.7.2017 whereby the complainant was asked to provide the details of the vehicle to ascertain the facts of notice. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- In the reply filed by OP No.2, preliminary objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act;that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vague.
- On merits, it is stated to be matter of record that the complainant visited the workshop of OP No.2 on 27.5.2017 and the vehicle was inspected by the engineer of OP No.2. It is submitted that after inspecting the vehicle, the complainant was specifically apprised about the factum of the problem in the vehicle and after receiving his assent the same was repaired. It is denied that OP No.2 had used inferior replacement spare parts in the car of the complainant and the genuine spare parts as provided by MSIL was fitted in the car in question. There is no warranty of the spare parts. There was no problem during the warranty period. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1 alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Jasbir Singh Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Gill, Operation Head of OP No.2 alongwith documents Exs.OP3 &OP4 and closed the evidence.
- The OP No.1 has also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has purchased Maruti Suzuki on 29.4.2008 and the car was being serviced from time to time. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant got the car serviced from OP No.2 on 14.2.2016 and at that time the same was run 1,28,660kms. The ld. counsel further argued that front suspension was changed by OP No.2 and charged Rs.4059/- from the complainant. It is further argued that on May,2017 complainant again faced some problem in the car and visited the workshop of OP No.2 on 27.5.2017 and the engineer who inspected the car informed the complainant that front suspension has worn out and need to be replaced. At that time the car had run 1,28,660kms.It is argued that inferior parts were replaced as such OPs be directed to refund the amount and also to compensate the complainant.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP argued that the complainant has filed false complaint. It is further argued that the warranty of the vehicle was already elapsed. The ld. counsel further argued that on 14.2.2016 the car had clocked at 1,28,660kms.The ld. counsel further argued that after warranty no obligation has been left on the part of the OP. The ld. counsel further argued that when front suspension was changed the vehicle has run 20kms within 14 months and it was not the responsibility of the OP to change the parts free of costs and the complaint be dismissed.
- In support of the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit, Ex.CA and deposed as per the complaint,Ex.C1 is the vehicle history cum job card.The car was repaired and mileage has been shown as 128659 and front suspension was changed. This job card is dated 14.2.2016.Second job card is Ex.C2.It is dated 27.5.2017 when there was again problem in front suspension and total bill was of Rs.4151/-.Ex.C3 is the legal notice,Ex.C4 is the postal receipt,Ex.C5 is another legal notice,Ex.C6 is postal receipt.
- On the other hand, the OP has tendered affidavit of Jasbir Singh, who has deposed as per the written statement. It is also deposed that warranty for a vehicle stands for a period of 24 months or 40,000kms and warranty policy is Ex.OP1.Reply of legal notice is Ex.OP2.The OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Gill,Ex.OPB who has deposed as per the written statement.Ex.OP3 and OP4 are the job cards.
- It is an admitted fact of the complainant that he purchased Maruti Suzuki Zen LX MPI on 29/.4.2008.After period of 8 years on 14.2.2016 when the vehicle had run 1,28,660kms, it developed problem on front suspension and the front suspension was got replaced. As per the complainant, he again faced the problem on May,2017 and he visited the workshop of OP No.2 on 27.5.2017 and the person who inspected the car informed the complainant that front suspension has worn out and need to be replaced. At that time the car had run 1,48330kms.So it is clear that again problem in front suspension was occurred when the car had run 20000kms within 1 ½ year. Now the complainant has stated that inferior parts were put by the OP so the amount which has been spent again, be refunded.
- As per the warranty, it is of two years or 40000kms and the warranty has already been elapsed when the complainant got repaired his car on 14.2.2016.The complainant has not proved any document to show that inferior parts have been replaced by the OP while repairing the car in question. After 20000kms the car again developed some problem of front suspension and at that the car had run 1,48,330kms.
- Now there is not document on the file produced by the complainant which could show that inferior parts were put by the OP.As there is no force in the complaint, the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period due to heavy pendency of cases. ANNOUNCED DATED:5.11.2020 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
