DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.318 of 11.8.2016                                                                  

                                      Decided on:         10.2.2021

Balwinder Singh S/o Sh.Kirtan Singh R/o Village Gumti Kalan, Tehsil Phool, District Bathinda.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Maruti India (P) Ltd., Head Office: Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
2. CM Auto Sales (P) Ltd., B-64, Phase-&, Industrial Area, Mohali.
3. Hira Automobiles Ltd., Showroom Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.S.S.Sidhu, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.J.K.Garg, counsel for OP No.1

                                      Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

                                      None for OP No.3.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Balwinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Maruti India (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2.  Brief facts of the complaint are that on 9.9.2013 the complainant purchased a car make Maruti Swift VDI bearing chassis No.511260, engine No.D13A0432327, colour white for a total amount of Rs.6,30,000/- including insurance, the warranty of which was up to 80,000KMs or up to 4 years.
3. It is averred that at 19000 KMs the car of the complainant started giving gear problem and the complainant visited OP workshop where the employee/mechanic just oiled some parts of gear. It is further averred that in the month of December,2015 the complainant was going to PGI Chandigarh for his medical treatment with his son Gurpreet Singh when clutch of the plates of the car broke suddenly. The complainant and his son after arranging a towing van in a sum of Rs.7500/- got sent the car to C.M.Auto Sales (P) Ltd. B-64,Phase-7,Industrial Area Mohali and the complainant and his son came back after hiring a tax for a sum of Rs.4500/-. The car repaired on 14.12.2015. Though at the time of accident the car was within warranty period but even then the OP No.2 charged Rs.4628/- as repair charges. It is averred that at 66,118 Kms the car in question again started giving gear problem and the complainant visited OP’s workshop. At that time rings were changed alongwith other gear parts and clutch plates were also changed for which the complainant was forced to pay Rs.6587 on 30.1.2016 to get the delivery of the car while the car was within warranty. The OPs sold a defective car to the complainant which is giving problems. The complainant requested the OPs for the replacement of the car or to refund his money back. The complainant also got sent a legal notice dated 10.5.2016 to the OPs but no heed was paid by them. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
4. On this back ground of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to pay the repair charges of Rs.6587/- paid to Hira Auto, Rs.4628/- paid to CM Auto, Mohali, Rs.7500/- towing charges and Rs.4500/- as taxi charges alongwith interest @12% per annum and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.15000/-as costs of litigation.
5. Upon notice OPs No.1&3 were appeared through counsel and contested the complaint while OP No.2 did not come present to contest the complaint and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
6. In the reply filed by OP No.1 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint; that the present complaint is without any cause of action. It is submitted that the alleged defect of clutch is not covered under the warranty period.
7. On merits it is submitted that the vehicle in question had a manufacturer’s warranty for 24 months or 40,000kms, whichever is earlier. It is further submitted that the complainant had availed an extended warranty which starts after the expiry of manufacturer’s warranty and is valid up to another 40,000kms or 2 years, whichever is earlier. The vehicle was attended as per warranty obligations and was delivered to the complainant after carrying out necessary repairs. Two free services were carried out to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant did not sent the vehicle for 3^rd free service. It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP No.2 on 14.12.2015 at 62726 kms.At that time clutch was found burnt and the necessary repairs/replacement was carried out on paid basis. Again the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP No.3 on 29.1.2016 at 66118 kms and the problem of gear was reported. Vehicle was attended by OP No.3 and necessary repairs were carried out. It is reiterated that clutch is not covered under warranty. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that transaction of service/repairs was between the OPs No.2&3 and the complainant and the OP has not received any consideration for the same. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other allegations the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In the reply filed by OP No.3, it raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the contents of the complaint are totally false, frivolous.
9. On merits, it is it is submitted that the company provides warranty policy to every customer as per sales procedures followed by the company, which means to provide all kinds of repairs/replacement of components which got defected with the warranty period , the same will be repaired or replaced according to the policy terms and conditions. There is no policy to refund the amount or to replace the old car with new one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other allegations, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill alongwith documents Exs.OP2 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
12. No evidence on behalf of OP No.1 has been lead despite having availed ample opportunities and the evidence of OP No.1 was closed by order  dated 6.7.2017.
13. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
14. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased Maruti Swift VDI car on 9.9.2013 for Rs.6.30.000/- and he took warranty for four years or 80000kms.The ld. counsel for argued that after19000kms the car started giving trouble. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP just oiled some parts of gear and asked the complainant to wait for the reply. The ld. counsel further argued that in the month of December,2015 the complainant was going for his medical treatment alongwith his son Gurpreet Singh and the clutch plate broke suddenly. The complainant suffered harassment and they hired the taxi and towed the car after paying Rs.7500/- to CM Auto Sales(P) Ltd.Phgase-7,Industrial Area, Mohali. The car was got repaired and he spent the amount of Rs.4500/-.The ld. counsel further argued that legal notice was sent but the amount was not paid so the complaint be allowed.
15. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that clutch plates are not covered under the warranty. So Maruti Suzuki is not bound to make the payment of the clutch.
16. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint alongwith entire documents. Ex.C1 is the legal notice sent to Maruti India(P) Ltd.,Ex.C4 is the postal receipt, Ex.C2 is another legal notice sent to CM Auto Sales (P) Ltd.,Ex.C5 is postal receipt,Ex.C3 is the legal notice sent to Hira Automobiles Ltd.,Ex.C6 is the postal receipt.
17. Ex.C7 is the licence of Balwinder Singh,Ex.C8 is the insurance policy,Ex.C9 is the bill of CM Automobiles of Rs.4628/-.It is dated 14.12.2015 and this regarding defect in the clutch and this is the disputed bill vide which the  complainant has sought the payment.
18. Ex.C11 is the bill of Rs.4536/-but this payment is not sought by the complainant.Ex.C12 is the bill of Hira Automobiles Ltd. of Rs.6587/- regarding which the complainant has sought the payment and this is of 30.1.2016 and the clutch was repaired.Ex.C14 is the important document. It is of warranty given by Maruti Suzuki for four years. It was valid up till 8.9.2017 or up to 80000kms.
19. The ld. counsel for the OP has stated that the clutch is not covered under the warranty. The Maruti Suzuki is one of biggest car distributor of this country and they cannot wriggle from the responsibility for repairing the car when they themselves extended the warranty by taking the amount of Rs.8320/- valid up to 8.9.2017.This refusal gives a wrong picture of the Auto Mobiles Industry running in a country. So it is clear that the warranty was up to 8 September,2017 and bills,Ex.C9 of Rs.4628/- is dated 14.12.2015 and Ex.C12 of Rs.6587 is also for the year 2016 and both these bills are covered under the warranty.
20. The complainant has sought Rs.7500/- paid as towing  charges and Rs.4500/-as taxi charges but he is not entitled to this amount as there is no receipt  that in fact he has paid both these amounts.
21. On behalf of OP No.3 Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the pleadings of written reply and he has proved the bill,Ex.OP1 vide which the car was purchased on 9.9.2013 for Rs.6,04,773/-.He has also proved the extended warranty,Ex.OP2.
22. So due to our above discussion as the warranty was valid up to 8.9.2017, so the complaint is partly allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.11,215/-alongwith interest @6% from the date of deposits till realization. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and also Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made by the  OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:10.2.2021

                                            Y.S.Matta                    Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                               President