Haryana

Ambala

CC/331/2014

JAI PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI UDYOG LTD - Opp.Party(s)

R.K PAWAN

04 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No   : 331 of 2014

Date of Institution     :  26.11.2014.

Date of Decision       :  04.08.2017.

Jaipal Singh Chauhan, Advocate District Courts, Ambala City aged about 46 years resident of village Haryoli, P.O. Nagla-Jattan, District Ambala.

                                                                                       ……Complainant.

Versus

1.Maruti Udyog Limited, through its Authorized Signatory Shri Pankaj Narula (Executive Director (Surveyor) Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015.

2.M/s Modern Automobiles thorugh its Authorised Signatory/Manager, Ambala-Chandigarh Road, Near Jandli Bridge, Ambala City.

3.Eakansh Wheels, Authorised Maruti Suzuki Dealer, K.M.Stone 126, village Tepla, State Highway NO.05, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt- 133001, through its Authorized signatory.

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:    SH.D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MRS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

         

Present:       Sh.J.P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for complainant.  

Sh.Keshav Sharma, Advocate for OP Nos. 1 & 2.

                   Sh.U.S.Chauhan, Advocate for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Swift VDI Car bearing Registration No.HR01/X-0032 from the OP No.2 on 13.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- and the said car was having full warranty of 100000 kilometers.  The OP No.2 had assured that in case any defect occurs during warranty period then same would be removed. The car in question started creating problems when it had run 18000 kilometers but after inspection engineer of Op No.2 told that the same would be removed automatically being a minor defect. On 28.06.2014, the car stopped working due to defective clutch-plates; therefore, on the instruction of OP No.2 the complainant took the car at his residence after towing the same and on the next day took the vehicle to OP No.3 and got it repaired by spending a sum of Rs.4600/- despite the fact that the vehicle was in warranty period but the clutch-plates are still not working properly. The rear tyre of the vehicle also got pressed from the middle in the month of February, 2014. The complainant requested the OPs for removing the defect in the clutch-plates and also got served legal notice upon them but to no avail.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsels and filed separate replies to the complaint. OP Nos.1 & 2 in their joint reply submitted that their liability being the manufacturer is limited to provide warranty benefits as per Clause-3 of the warranty policy as mentioned in Owner’s Manual. The defect/problem in clutch and tyre does not fall within the warranty as per clause 4 (b) of the warranty policy. It has been further submitted that the warranty provided to the customer was for 2 years or 40000 kilometer whichever is earlier. On 30.06.2014 the vehicle was taken for repairs when it had run 38126 kilometers which shows that the vehicle was defect free. The complainant himself has been negligent in maintaining the vehicle as it had met with an accident for six times. The vehicle had covered 40000 kilometers within one year and in the month of February,2014 the complainant had brought the vehicle for accidental repairs. Objections about maintainability cause of action and complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer have also been taken.

3.                OP No.3 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, locus standi and complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer etc. It has been submitted that on 30.06.2014 the complainant had taken his car to it for defect in clutch plate which was duly removed after charging Rs.4600/- as it was not within warranty condition and thereafter the complainant has never raised any defect in the same. All these OPs have denied any deficiency in service on their part. In evidence OP Nos. 1 & 2 have tendered affidavits Annexure RX and RY and documents Annexure R1 and Annexure R2 and Op No.3 has tendered documents Annexure R3 and Annexure R4.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

5.                The main grievance of the complainant is that on 30.06.2014, the vehicle in question stopped working near Ismailabad due to defect in clutch-plate, which was a manufacturing defect. The complainant took the vehicle in question at the service station of O No.3 at the instance of OP No.2 where OP No.3 has got repaired the same by charging Rs.4600/- despite the fact that the vehicle in question was in warranty period. The complainant has prayed for refunding the above said amount and also to replace the rear tyre besides removing the defect in the vehicle. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle had run only 38126 kilometer on 30.06.2014 on the date of occurrence when the clutch-plate was got damaged and the warranty of the vehicle in question was for 24 months or 40000 kilometers whichever occurs first, so the defect was occurred within the warranty period and the Ops are liable to refund the charged amount Rs.4600/- qua repairing of clutch-plate besides replacement of defective tyre and repairing of vehicle.

                   On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea the as per Clause 4 (2) (Annexure R1/2) the clutch-plate and the tyre do not fall within the warranty policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Relevant portion of Clause 4 (2) is as under:

                   The replacement of normal wear parts including without limitation, bulbs, battery, tyres and tubes, spark plugs, belts, hoses, filters, wiper blades, brushes, contact points, fuses, clutch disc, brake shoes, brake pads, cable and all rubber parts (except oil seal and glass run).

                    In the present complaint, the complainant has also claimed that the rear tyre of vehicle in question has become defective and the repaired clutch plate is also not working properly but he has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove the above said pleas. The amount so charged by the OP No.3 is not payable to the complainant despite the fact that the clutch plate and tyre were not covered within the warranty period as mentioned in Customer Manual/warranty policy (Annexure R1/2). Moreover, the damage to the clutch-plates and defect in the tyre can happen due to handling and driving of the vehicle by the driver.

6.                In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Op No.3 has rightly charged the amount of Rs.4600/- for repairing the clutch-plate of the vehicle in question, therefore, the Ops cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON 04.08.2017                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                     PRESIDENT              

 

 

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       MEMBER     

 

                                                               (ANAMIKA GUPTA)                        

                                                                                      MEMBER