DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  199

                                                Instituted on:    11.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       23.08.2017

Sanveer Kaur D/o Major Singh R/O Village Laddi, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur authorized dealer of Maruti through its proprietor.

2.             Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Adv.

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

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

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Smt. Sanveer  Kaur, 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 she purchased a new Swift Dzire VDI car model 11/2014 bearing registration number PB-13-AN-0260 from OP number 2 vide bill dated 30.11.2014.  The grievance of the complainant is that after purchase of the said car, the car in question developed problem of gear shifting in the month of July, 2016 within the warranty period, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 on 5.7.2016 and brought the problem in the knowledge of OP number 1  and the OP number 1 done the work and stated that there would be no problem in future.  But, again the said problem developed on 11.7.2016, as such the complainant again approached OP number 1 and further thereafter the complainant again approached the OP number 1 with the said problem on 1.8.2016 and 18.10.2016.  It is stated further that though the Ops replaced various parts of the car in question, but the problem could not be cured permanently.  As such, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to change the complete gear box of the car of the complainant or to give the complainant the amount of Rs.88,625/- being the cost of the gear box and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it has been admitted by the OP number 1 that the complainant purchased the car in question.  Further it is admitted that the complainant came to the OP number 1 on 5.7.2016 and stated that the vehicle is not running smoothly and the OP number 1 immediately checked the car of the complainant and found that there was some problem in the car and few parts needs to be replaced, but the same were not in stock, as such the OP immediately ordered those parts from OP number 2 and requested the complainant that it will take approximate one week for parts to arrive and as such the complainant was requested to bring the car after one week.  Thereafter the car in question was repaired after replacing the parts in question.  Thereafter the car in question was checked on 1.8.2016 and there was no noise of any type. It is stated further that on 18.10.2016 the complainant brought the car in question to OP number 1 with malafide intention and reported that the car is not running smoothly.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             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 after thought 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 had purchased the car in question.  However, it has been empathetically denied that there was any problem in the gear box or that the gear box problem was not resolved or that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged.  It is stated that the vehicle was sent to the OP number 1 on 5.7.2016 and the vehicle was not running smoothly as reported and after inspection some parts were ordered and after receipt of the same, the parts were replaced and the vehicle was in OK condition.  The repairs of the car in question were conducted free of cost.  It has been denied that on 1.8.2016 the vehicle was not running smoothly as reported by the complainant.  Again the vehicle was brought on 18.10.2016 in the workshop of OP number 1 for paid service at 30936 KM, but the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding any defect.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/29 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with annexure R-2/1 to Annexure R-2/6 and closed evidence.

5.             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 acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP number 1 on 30.11.2014 and it is further admitted that during the subsistence of the guarantee/warranty period, the gear box of the car in question developed problem, as such, the complainant approached the OP number 1  on various occasions i.e. on 5.7.2016, 11.7.2016, 1.8.2016 and 18.10.2016, despite the fact that the OP number 1 replaced various parts of the car in question free of cost, but the fact remains that the gear box of the car in question could not be repaired properly and the same problem in gear still persisted and was not removed permanently.  The OP number 1 has also produced on record the vehicle history Ex.Op1/2, which clearly shows that the complainant approached the Op number 1 on so many occasions to get rectified the gear box problem.  All the record produced by the OP number 1 clearly reveals that the OP number 1 did every effort to get the car in question repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, but then again the gear box problem could not be rectified which seems to be beyond the control of the OP number 1.   It seems that there would be some permanent defect in the gear box of the car in question.  Reliance can be placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India pronounced in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and another versus N. Siva Kumar and another 2000(1) SCC 654 (SC), whrein it has been held that the appellant sold the defective car to the respondent and the Hon’ble National Commission ordered the replacement of car, but the appellant however stopped the manufacturing the said model. It was held that no other commission order for refund of money with interest, compensation and cost to be paid to respondent and further held that the dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  In view of our above, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 2/manufacturer is directed to replace the complete gear box of the car in question free of cost, as it is a proved case of manufacturing defect in the gear box, as the same could not be rectified despite repeated repairs by OP number 1.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to provide the complete gear box of the car in question to OP number 1, who shall replace it free of cost without charging anything from the complainant. The OP number 1 is also directed to write a letter to the complainant to call for the car for replacement of gear box and thereafter the complainant shall hand over the car for repairs/replacement of the gear box to OP number 1.   The OP number 2 is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the consolidated cost of compensation and litigation expenses. 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.

                August 23, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member