Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/134/2020

Naveen Singh Maan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki - Opp.Party(s)

Virat Rana Adv.

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	134 of 2020
Date of Institution	17.10.2020
Date of Decision	10.08.2022

 

 

Naveen Singh Maan, son of Sh. Randhir Singh Maan, resident of House No.217, Khushal Enclave, Phabat, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

     …..Appellant/Complainant

 

Versus

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 through their Managing Directors.
2. Nexa Autopace Network Private Limited, Gate No.3, Elante Mall, 178-179A, Ground Floor, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh 160001 through their Managing Directors.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Autopace Network Private Limited, Plot No.112-113, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh 160102 through their Managing Directors.  

                              …..Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  None for the appellant.

                      Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for respondent No.1 (on VC).

                     Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 (on VC).

                           

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.01.2020, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh, now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).   

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Nexa Baleno car from Opposite Party No.2, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 on 20.05.2017. It was stated that in the month of June 2017, the complainant started facing some issues with the air conditioner of the car and the defect was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.3 i.e. service center, but the problem was not resolved. It was further stated that the complainant again called Opposite Party No.3/service center and they inspected the vehicle and changed certain parts.  It was further stated that on 18.09.2017, an email was received from the Opposite Parties to support the claim of defect with proof and again the repair was got done on 03.04.2018. It was further stated that after receiving the job card, the complainant waited for a considerably long period of more than a month against the assurance of 3-4 days. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed.
3. The Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply and stated that on third free inspection on 03.04.2018, which was done at 11359 kms., the Air Conditioner was found not effective as was reported and it was repaired and same is functioning well. It was further stated that earlier a consumer complaint was filed, which was withdrawn on 06.11.2018, therefore, the warranty policy was followed and nothing was charged from the complainant for curing the defect and the Air Conditioner is now working perfectly. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 filed their joint reply and stated the consumer complaint to be vexatious. It was further stated that the earlier consumer complaint filed was withdrawn and the warranty policy was followed, therefore, vehicle cannot be replaced.  It was further stated that there is no deficiency on their part.
5. In the separate rejoinders, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 31.01.2020.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the Respondents, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. On a perusal of the records, this Commission finds that the learned District Commission has dismissed the complaint, it was observed by them that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out on the part of the respondents. The respondents had rectified the defect in the Air Conditioner as soon as it was noticed, which was as per warranty policy, but the demand of the appellant/complainant was that vehicle be replaced. This Commission also feels that for a single defect which was rectified in time, demand for unfair replacement of vehicle or its value is not justified and therefore, the learned District Commission was right in dismissing the complaint. Falling in line with the above, the said appeal is dismissed.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
13. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.798 of 2020 for condonation of delay of 192 days also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

10.08.2022

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-   

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-                                                                               

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

GP