Punjab

Sangrur

CC/351/2016

Anterpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Autos - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Naveen Shrivastava

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  351

                                                Instituted on:    12.04.2016

                                                Decided on:       25.11.2016

 

Anterpreet Singh son of Shri Karamjit Singh, resident of Village Badrukhan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             MAX Autos, Dhrui Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

2.             Maruti Suzuki India Limited 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Naveen Shrivastava, Adv.

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

For OP No.2             :       Shri Navit Puri,Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Anterpreet Singh, 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 the complainant purchased a new Swift ZDI car on 3.9.2015 from OP number 1 for Rs.8,10,000/- of which registration number PB-13-AQ-1469 was issued.  Further case of the complainant is that an accident took place o 24.3.2016 when a stray dog came in front of the car while the complainant was near Dhuri. Thereafter the car in question was handed over to OP number 1 for repairs.  It is further stated that on 25.3.2016 the OP intimated to take the delivery of the car which was taken on 26.3.2016 after clearing the bill in question.  Further case of the complainant is that on 27.3.2016 the air conditioner of the car started giving cooling problem, as such on 28.3.2016 the complainant visited the OP number 1 to diagnose the problem and after checking the car in question, the OP assured the complainant that there is no problem in the AC.  Further case of the complainant is that on 31.3.2016 when the complainant was going to nearby town, the car started showing overheating warning and AC also stopped working.  Further it is stated that the complainant visited the OP number 1 and apprised the problem and the representative of the OP told that there may be problem in the gas kit or in the thermostat.  The complainant stated that the car has been repaired on 26.3.2016, but why there was problem in the car.   It is further stated that the complainant was asked to pay charges of cost of thermostat and labour charges, but the complainant told that nothing should be charged as the car in question is within the warranty.  It is further stated that the OP number 1 did not repair the car fully, as such are the Ops are deficient in service.

 

2.             Further it is stated that the complainant purchased the car after reading their advertisement and confirmed from OP number 2 about the advertisement.  But, the Ops have sold the car by misleading the complainant, which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the price of the car i.e. Rs.8,10,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question.  It is admitted that the complainant brought his car to the OP for repairs and stated that his car met with an accident. It is stated further that since the complainant drove his car for 15 KMs even after the car met with alleged accident and due to that the radiator got damaged and as such the damage to the car occurred due to the complainant’s own act and now the complainant is trying to fasten the liability of his mistake on the OP.  It is further denied that the AC of the car in question developed any problem of cooling on 27.3.2016.  It is totally denied that the complainant ever visited on 27.3.2016 or 28.3.2016 to the OP number 1.

 

4.             Further case of the OP is that on 1.4.2016, the complainant came to the service centre of OP and stated that the car of the complainant is overheating and further stated that there is some problem in the thermostat of the car and the same was replaced by the OP.  The OP then thoroughly checked the car of the complainant and even went for a test drive along with the complainant to check the car gets overheating, but after checking the car and after test drive, no such problem of overheating came to surface and the car of the complainant was running smoothly.  It is further stated that the complainant then stated that the thermostat of the car in question is damaged and the same needs to be replaced and the OP on demand of the complainant checked the thermostat of the car, but the thermostat of the car was working properly, as such the same the thermostat of the car was also changed free of cost. It is further stated that after replacing the thermostat the OP called and requested the complainant to take back his car as the thermostat has been replaced, then the complainant refused to take back his car and stated that now the complainant will drag the OP to the court and will take new car from the OP and not only that will also take heft amount of compensation.   It is further stated that the complainant again requested the OP to take back the car, but all in vain. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

5.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has impleaded the OP number 2 without any reason, cause of action or justification, that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP as defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA.  That the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complainant without any material on record. 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.  It is submitted that the vehicle met with an accident thereby violating the warranty as per the clause 4(4) as enumerated in the owners manual, because accidental cases are not covered under the warranty.  On merits,  it is admitted that the car in question was purchased by the complainant.  Further it is stated that admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 25.3.2016, therefore, the warranty got violated as per clause 4(4) being accidental case.  It is further stated that the repairs of the vehicle has been done under insurance and the complainant had concealed this fact from the Forum.   It is further stated that the OP sells its product to its authorised dealers and the relationship between the OP and the dealer is that of principal to principal basis.   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.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of vehicle detail, Ex.C-3 copy of warranty policy, Ex.C-4 copy of cover of owner manual, Ex.C-5 copy of letter, Ex.C-6 certificate cum policy schedule, Ex.C-7 copy of depreciation certificate, Ex.C-8 copy of RC, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13 copies of bills and receipt, Ex.C-14 copy of widest network, Ex.C-15 copy of service network, Ex.C-16 copy of maruti genuine parts, Ex.C-17 copy of service feedback, Ex.C-18 and Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-27 copies of letters and documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 affidavit of Anil Kumar, Ex.OP1/3 copy of job card, Ex.OP1/4 copy of bill dated 25.3.2016, Ex.OP1/5 copy of receipt, Ex.OP/16 copy of pay advice dated 29.3.2016, Ex.OP1/7 to Ex.OP1/11 copies of bills, letters, postal receipts and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP-2/1 affidavit along with annexure R-2/1 to Annexure R-2/6 and closed evidence.

 

7.             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 part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP number 1 on 3.9.2015, which met with an accident on 24.3.2016 when a stray dog came in front of the car.  It is also an admitted fact that the car in question was handed over to the complainant on 26.3.2016 after repairs.    

 

9.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that on 27.3.2016 the AC of the car started to give cooling problem, as such the complainant visited OP number 1 to diagnose the problem, which was duly rectified by the OP on 28.3.2016.    Further grievance of the complainant is that on 31.3.2016 the car in question started to show overheating warning and AC also stopped working.  As such, the complainant visited OP number 1 on 1.4.2016 and apprised the OP number 1 about the overheating problem and further told that the thermostat of the car in question is defective.  The complainant has contended vehemently that the car in question was not repaired and as such has further contended that the OP is deficient in service by not delivering the car thereafter.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that though the car was repaired itself on 1.4.2016 and made it in the road worthy condition and the complainant was made so many calls to take the delivery of the vehicle, but all in vain and the complainant did not turn up.  

 

10.           We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.  We feel that in the present case, there is some minor defect of the thermostat in the car, which was duly repaired/replaced by the OP on 1.4.2016.  Now, the fact remains that why the OP number 1 did not deliver the car in question to the complainant.  To support the allegations, the complainant has produced on record his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13 copies of the bills/receipts issued by OP number 1. We have also perused the copy of letter dated 19.5.2016 produced on record as Ex.C-26, wherein it has been stated that “the above said vehicle had come to our service station for obtaining service/repair work on 1.4.2016. The vehicle was made ready on 1.4.2016 for delivery. Our service advisor had informed the same to you for taking the delivery of the vehicle. However, you have not taken delivery of your vehicle despite our repeated follow up causing loss of business opportunity to us beside undue hinderance in our workshop”.  It clearly shows that the OP number 1 wrote a letter to the complainant after a period of one month and 19 days only meaning thereby the OP number 1 took a long period for repair of the car and make it in working condition.  Though the OP number 1 has stated that so many telephone calls were made to the complainant to take back the delivery of the vehicle, but no evidence has been produced to support such a contention, nor any affidavit of the official, who called the complainant to take the delivery of the car has been produced.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that the OP number 1 is also duty bound to ask the owner to take vehicle and its letter should have been accompanied by a certificate stating that the vehicle was roadworthy.  But, in the present case, nothing like is done by OP number 1.  To support such a contention, reliance can also be placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission pronounced in Hyundai Motor India Limited versus S.T.Patil and another 2016(1) CPJ 401 (NC), wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the OPs to ask the complainant to take vehicle and its letter should have been accompanied by a certificate stating that vehicle was roadworthy. It is also difficult to fathom, why the OPs did not provide the report of their own mechanic. Keeping in view the entire facts, directions issued to OPs to repair car, because it has already run to the extent of 49,000 KMs within 15 days from receipt of copy of the order. Certificate shall be given that car is road worthy and suffer from no defect.

 

11.           Record shows that in the present case, the car was having minor defect of thermostat, which was duly replaced, but the fact remains that the OP number 1 failed to deliver the car in question immediately after repairs, nor any such letter accompanied by the certificate that car is road worthy and suffers from no defects was given.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the complainant was not immediately intimated that the car in question has been repaired and to take the delivery of the car in question.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant handed over the car to the complainant on 1.4.2016 and since then the same is standing with the OP number 1 and the complainant also remained without car for the said period i.e. from 1.4.2016. To this extent, we feel that the OP number 1 is deficient in service.

 

12.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 1 to hand over the car in question  to the complainant in roadworthy condition along with a certificate stating that the car is road worthy and suffer from no defects.  The OPs shall further provide/extend the warranty of the car for the period from 1.4.2016 till delivery of the car in addition to the previous warranty of two years.  We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.  It is made clear that the OP number 1 shall not charge any parking fee from the complainant.

 

13.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 25,2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member