Punjab

Sangrur

CC/407/2016

Deepak Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Auto - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Kaler

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  407

                                                Instituted on:    01.06.2016

                                                Decided on:       09.12.2016

 

Deepak Jindal son of Late Shri Raghunath Dass Jindal, R/O St. No.4, Thalesh Bagh Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its M.D.

2.             Maruti Suzuki India Limited having its Regional office at SCO 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Saurav Garg,Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Satpal Sharma,Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Deepak Jindal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Celerio car model VXI bearing registration number PB-08-CZ-7851 from the original owner of the car Shri Sharanjit Rana son of Ashwani Kumar, who had purchased the car in question from Stan Autos Jalandhar. The complainant has alleged that he is the consumer of the OP number 1 as he is getting the regular service of the vehicle.   It is further averred that the vehicle in question is having a warranty of 24 months or 40,000 KMs whichever is earlier.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that in the first week of April 2016, that the car in question was suffering from the defect of vibration on low speed and current missing and due to the missing problem, the car reduces the RPM at running time automatically and after some time the speed becomes normal and as such, he approached OP number 1, but the OP number 1 did not listen the complainant, as such the complainant lodged a complaint with OP number 2 at its toll free number, but all in vain.  It is further averred that finally the vehicle was checked by the OP number 1 on 10.5.2016 and stated that the engine wiring of the car is required to be replaced and advised the complainant to come after one week.   The complainant as such visited OP number 1, but nothing was done.  The complainant also sent email dated 25.5.2016 to OP number 2 but nothing happened.  The complainant has alleged that he is facing the same problem in he vehicle i.e. vibration and current missing, which the Ops failed to rectify in the car. Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to change the vehicle with a new one or in the alternative the Ops be directed to repair the vehicle and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the OP number 1 deals with the sale, service and repairs of the cars manufactured by OP number 2, but it has been denied that the complainant purchased the Maruti Celerio car model VXI bearing registration number PB-08-CZ-7851 from Sharanjit Rana, who had purchased the car from Stan Autos, Jalandhar. However, it is admitted that OP number 2 gives warranty of vehicle for a period of 24 months or 40000 KMs whichever is earlier. The case of the OP is that the complainant visited OP number 1 on 8.3.2016 and reported that engine of the car is not starting and it is missing current and the OP immediately checked the car of the complainant and went on a test drive with the complainant, but no such problem was there and as such the complainant shown his satisfaction about the same.  Thereafter the complainant again brought his car to the OP on 19.4.2016 and reported that the AC of the car is not effective, clutch of the car is hard and the car is causing bubbling when driven and the OP immediately checked the car of the complainant and went on a test drive with the complainant, but no such problem was there.  It is further averred that the complainant came on 20.4.2016 and OP replaced the clutch set of the car under warranty and did not charge anything and the complainant was satisfied and a note regarding this was duly given on job card dated 20.4.2016.  It is further stated that on 11.5.2016, Mr. Harshal Choksy, TSM and Mr. Vidhur Gupta, Regional Technical Manager of OP number 2 were called to check the car of the complainant and they also checked the car of the complainant thoroughly but no such problem was there rather it was noticed that only problem was with the driving of the complainant as the complainant drives the car in second gear without acceleration and resultantly signed to ECM gets interrupted and when this fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant instead of admitting his mistake started abusing the OP and TSM and RTM. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint and that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, that the complaint is without any cause of action against the OP and that the complaint is afterthought and filed with an ulterior motive and to get undue gains.  The OP number 2 is only responsible for providing warranty service during the warranty period of two years or 40,000 Kms from the date of sale.  The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations.  On merits,  it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP as far the transaction of the sale is concerned. It is denied that the OP number 1 is branch office of OP number 2 and that the OP number 1 is an independent entity having its own MOA and carry out business on their own invoice and sale certificate.  It has been denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or that there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It has been stated that the vehicle was sent to the OP number 1 on 30.12.2015 at 7684 KM (2684 KM in violation as stipulated mileage of 5000 KM), thereby violating the warranty as per clause 4(9) of the warranty.  The vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant in running condition after his satisfaction.  It has been denied that there is any problem in the vehicle in question. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of expert report dated 10.8.2016, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 copies of emails, Ex.C-7 copy of inspection form, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-9 copies of job card, Ex.C-10 copy of call detail, Ex.C-11 affidavit of complainant and Ex.C-12 affidavit of Gurtej Ahemad and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/18 copy of job card and bills and Ex.OP1/19 copy of vehicle history and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with annexure R-2/1 to Annexure R-2/5 and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             First of all, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has contended vehemently that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, as he never purchased any vehicle from the OPs.  The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he purchased the vehicle in question from its original owner Sharanjit Rana son of Ashwani Kumar nor there is any evidence on record to show that the car in question was purchased by Shri Sharanjit Rana from Stan Autos Jalandhar.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not produced even a single evidence to establish that he purchased the vehicle in question or he is the owner of the vehicle in question,  as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.

 

8.             Now, coming to the point that the OP number 1 is deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not repairing the car in question as the complainant has alleged defects of vibration on low speed and another defect of current missing in the car.  In this regard, the stand of the OP number 1 is that whenever the complainant visited the Op number 1 with this problem, the same was duly rectified and the complainant was made satisfied about the same. It is further contended by the learned counsel for OP number 1 that the car in question was even checked on 11.5.2016 by Mr. Harshal Choksy, TSM and Mr. Vidhur Gupta, Regional Technical Manager of OP number 2 along with the complainant and found that there was no such problem, rather the problem was with the driving of the complainant as the complainant drives the car in second gear without acceleration and resultantly signal to ECM gets interrupted and when this fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant then he annoyed. To support this contention, reliance can also be placed on the job slip produced by the complainant on record as Ex.C-3.  It is worth mentioning here that Shri Harshal Arun Choksi, Territory Service Manager has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/1 to support his contention, wherein in para number 5 it has been clearly mentioned that “I submit that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP number 1 on 11.5.2016 and engine not starting problem was reported. Upon inspection it was observed that there was no problem with the wiring harness and radiator and the complainant was driving the vehicle in 2^nd gear without acceleration which results into interrupt signals to the ECM.  The problem was not with the vehicle but was the driving habit of the complainant which was causing the trouble. I further submit that the wiring harness and radiator were replaced under goodwill warranty only for the satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from the records.  The complainant was educated that the problem may again arise if he continues to drive in the same fashion.  The vehicle was in perfect OK condition.  The complainant did not pay the charges of the consumables and took the delivery without signing the bill and per invoice which clearly indicates the improper conduct of the complainant. …” But, to deny this allegation of the complainant has produced nothing on record nor any rejoinder has been produced on the record.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce any such evidence to rebut the contention of the OPs.  Further we may mention that the complainant has produced on record the alleged expert report issued by Ahemd Motor Garage dated 10.8.2016, Ex.C-1, wherein he has stated that he checked the car on 10.8.2016 and found that defects  of vibration and current missing, but we are unable to accept such a report as it has not been issued by any qualified automobile engineer, more so when the same is issued only by a mechanic, wherein he has stated that he is running the automobile repair workshop for the last 10 years.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced an affidavit of the expert Ex.OP2/1, who checked the vehicle, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that there is no defect in the vehicle rather the problem was with the driving habit of the complainant which was causing the trouble.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to produce on record the cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish his case that the car in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect.  Under the circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 9, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member