O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                 Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                 2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows:  The complainant placed an order for getting a Maruti Ertiga Car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- as advance to the 2^nd opposite party on 23.04.2012.  on the understanding that the car will be delivered within 7 days.  But the car was delivered only on 01.06.2012 that too was after numerous enquiries with the opposite parties by the complainant.  The said delay casts doubts whether the car delivered is a brand new car.  On the delivery of the car it was found bad smell from the A.C, knocking noise from the rear axle portion, formation of mist on the head light glass while driving during rain and defects in the horn.  The said defects were brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party without any delay.  Opposite parties took days and days for rectifying the said defects.  Even after their services also the same defects sprouts again.  On 23.03.2013 opposite party admitted that the reasons for the foul smell is unknown and is a manufacturing defect.  At last the complainant sent a legal notice on 30.04.2013 to the opposite parties for replacing the car or for returning the price of the car.  On getting the said notice, opposite parties directed the complainant to bring the car for repairs.  Accordingly, the complainant brought the car to the 2^nd opposite party and later as per their advice the car was given to the Thiruvananthapuram office of the opposite party.  Thereafter the car was again taken to the 2^nd opposite party on 28.10.2013.  Even after all this the complaints are still persisting.  The complainant has given his defective car as many as 10 times within the warranty period to the opposite parties requesting the replacement of the car.  So the complainant had suffered mental agony and harassment by taking the vehicle again and again to opposite parties for repair.  As the defects are not rectified by the opposite parties despite several attempts it would provide a strong reason to believe that there was manufacturing defect.  The delayed delivery of the car, the delivery of a defective car, the non rectification of the defect of the car and the non replacement of the car amounts to unfair trade practice and clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for an order directing opposite parties to discontinue their unfair trade practice along with an order for the return of Rs.8,15,868/-,the price of the car and Rs.22,000/- the price of the accessories purchased by the complainant with 12% interest from the date of filing of this complaint along with a total amount of Rs.47,500/- under various heads including compensation and cost etc.

                 3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions.  The main contentions raised in the versions of the opposite parties are similar in nature and hence their versions are not narrating separately. 

                 4. According to the opposite parties, there was no delay in delivering the car and the car given by the opposite parties is delivered in perfect condition and there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The delivery of a new car is made after ensuring its conditions by various checkups and tests both at the manufacturing yard and at the retail outlet.  The customer took delivery of the vehicle after satisfying the condition of the car.  In this case also, the car was delivered after all pre-delivery checkups and the complainant took the delivery with full satisfaction.  Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had brought certain minor complaints to the notice of the opposite parties during periodical services which are rectified then and there.  The complainant herein had visited the office of the 2^nd on 20 occasions.  On all his visits, they rendered best services to the complainant.  The service history pertaining to the complainant’s vehicle is maintained by the 2^nd opposite party.  The said visits are either for free services or for fitting accessories or for accident repairs or for washing and cleaning.  What all complaints brought to the notice of the opposite parties were rectified without delay to the best satisfaction of the complainant.  The knocking sound was removed by replacing the defective parts.  Complaints of the horn, bad smell from the A.C and moisture in headlamp were checked and rectified by the opposite party.  As per the service records it is evident that the complaints were only perception of the complainant and he has been still using the car without any major troubles, mechanical or manufacturing defect.  The car had covered more than 21000 kms.  All other allegations of the complainant that goes against this version is false.  This complaint is filed for tarnishing the reputation of the opposite parties.  All the allegations in the complaint are devoid of truth and opposite parties has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                 6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, DW1, CW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 series and B1 to B3 and C1.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                 7. The Point:-  The  complainant’s allegations are as follows:  At the time of booking the Maruti Ertiga Car, opposite parties assured to deliver it within 7 days.  But there was a delay of 30 days in delivering the car.  Further the said car had many complaints due to its manufacturing defect.  But opposite parties did not rectified the actual defects in spite of the complainant’s repeated request for the same.  Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties complainant was put to much sufferings and hardships and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Therefore the complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 

                 8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.A1 to A5 series.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 30.05.2012 issued by the 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the vehicle.  Ext.A2 is the copy of an advocate notice dated 30.04.2013 issued for the complainant against the opposite parties.  Ext.A3 is the reply notice dated 18.05.2013 in respect of Ext.A2 notice.  Ext.A4 to A4(b) are the postal receipts in respect of Ext.A2 notice.  Exts.A5 and A5(a) are the postal acknowledgment cards in respect of Ext.A2 notice.

                 9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that they have not delayed the delivery of the car as alleged by the complainant and there was no offer for delivering the car within 7 days.  The delivery of the car would be made only on the payment of the full amount and in this case though the complainant placed his booking on 23.04.2012, he had paid the balance amount only on 30.05.2012 and the delivery was made on 01.06.2012.  With respect to the complainant’s complaints of the car was properly attended and rectified as and when he brought the complaints to the notice of the opposite parties.  The complainant had visited the 2^nd opposite parties service centre for 20 times since from its purchase either for periodical services or for other repairs.  But he never raised any complaints of manufacturing defect of the car.  The service history kept by the opposite party clearly shows that all the complaints reported by the complainant was rectified properly to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The car has been continuously using by the complainant for the last 19 months and it had already covered more than 21000 kms.  In the circumstance, this complaint is baseless and he is not entitled to get any reliefs.  Therefore, the opposite parties argued for the dismissal of the complaint.

                 10. Though the 1^st opposite party has raised certain contentions they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour.            

                 11. In order to prove the contentions of the 2^nd opposite party, an authorized officer of the 2^nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts.B1 to B3.  Ext.B1 is the authorization of the 2^nd opposite party in favour of DW1.  Ext.B2 and B3 are the vehicle history kept by the 2^nd opposite party in respect of the complainant’s car since from its purchase.

                 12. Apart from the above evidences, an expert commissioner appointed by this Forum inspected the vehicle in question and filed his inspection report and the commissioner was examined as CW1 and his inspection report dated 29.05.2013 is marked as Ext.C1.

                 13. On the basis of the contentions, arguments and materials on record, we find that the parties have no dispute with the sale and repairs of the vehicle.  The disputes are with regard to the delay in delivery of the vehicle, the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and the non rectification of the defect of the vehicle.  But it is unfortunate to say that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the vehicle was delivered after a lapse of much time as against their assurance of delivering the car within 7 days.  None of the exhibits marked for the complainant discloses any delay in the delivery of the car.  Further in the absence of the order booking form and the terms and condition of delivery the allegation of the complainant about the delayed delivery is found not sustainable.  Then comes the allegation of manufacturing defect of the car.  In this regard also the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence or other evidences for substantiating his allegation of manufacturing defect.  Further, such an allegation will not stand in the case of a car which covered more than 21000 kms. and after using it for about 19 months.  The commissioner also has not reported anything about the manufacturing defect of the complainant’s car.  With regard to the allegation of non rectification of the complaints of the car, the service history produced from the side of the 2^nd opposite party, which are marked as Exts.B2 and B3 clearly shows that the vehicle was brought before the 2^nd opposite party several time and all the complaints reported were rectified perfectly and hence the said allegation is also found unsustainable.  Then coming to the commissioner’s evidences, his evidences also does not support the allegations of the complainant.  In Ext.C1 report, though he had stated that he had heard a knocking sound once from the left rear wheel portion, he had not made any efforts to find out the cause of the said sound.  A simple mention about the sound alone is not sufficient for a finding in favour of the complainant.  With regard to the issue of bad smell from the A.C, the commissioner has not brought any conclusive evidence.  Further he had no specific opinion also.  The other findings of the commissioner is also very weak to help the complainant.  In the absence of conclusive expert evidence we could not find any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service against the opposite parties.  Thus in all respects, this complaint lacks merits.  Therefore, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed.

                 14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

                 Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of November, 2014.

                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                             Jacob Stephen,       

                                                                                (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member - I)        :     (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)          :     (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Mohan. P. John

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Tax invoice dated 30.05.2012 issued by the 2^nd opposite  

        party in the name of the complainant. 

A2 :  Copy of an advocate notice dated 30.04.2013 issued by the  

        complainant to opposite parties. 

A3 :  Reply notice dated 18.05.2013 of Ext.A2 notice. 

A4 to A4(b) :  Postal receipts of Ext.A2 notice. 

A5 & A5(a):  Postal acknowledgment cards of Ext.A2 notice.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Sunish. C. Abraham

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Authorization of the 2^nd opposite party in favour of DW1.

B2 & B3  :  Vehicle history kept by the 2^nd opposite party.

Court Witness:

CW1  :  P.S. Jose

Court Exhibits:

C1  :  Commission Report

                                                                        (By Order)

                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Mohan. P. John, Melemadom, Meledathu-         

                    Mannakunnil, Santhi Nagar Road, Paliakkara,

                    Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.

              (2) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela- 

                   Road, Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.

              (3) Manager, Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

                   CSI Shopping Complex, Tholasseri.P.O., Thiruvalla,

              (4) The Stock File.