Haryana

Karnal

251/2013

Atul Gupta S/o Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Modern Automobile ., maruti Suzuki India Ltd., AM Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Kamra

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.251 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 24.05.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 01.09.2015

 

Atul Gupta son of Sh.Suresh Kumar resident of House no.2243, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal. 

                                                             ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1. Modern Automobiles Showroom No.7, Meerut Road, Karnal.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Regd. office plot No.1. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant  Kunj, New 

   Delhi.

3. AM Automobiles (Maruti Authorized Service Zone 189-91), Lawrence Road, New Delhi)

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.Deepak Vohra Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh. A.K.Vohra Advocate for OP No.2.

                   None  for OP no.3.

 

ORDER:

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased Swift-Dzire bearing registration No. HR-05AE-3443 on 26.12.2011 .   On 30.4.2013 while he and his family were on way from Delhi to Karnal the car suddenly stopped in the area of  Paharhganj  Delhi. The intimation was given  to the Opposite Party ( in short OP) No.2 and the complaint was registered at Sr.No. 684658. A mechanic from the authorized service station of  Maruti  i.e. respondent no.3  checked the vehicle  on the  road and found that engine did not start. The vehicle was shifted to the workshop of OP No.3 and on checking extra material (Oil) was  found in ECM. A request was sent to OP No.2 for approval for change of part under warranty.  On  9.5.2013, OP No.3 refused to change the part under warranty on the pretext that part was not covered under warranty.  Having no option,  he got his vehicle repaired from OP no.3 by making payment of Rs.24,061/-  on 12.5.2013  It has further been submitted that  warranty of  the vehicle was upto 25.12.2014 or upto 60,000KMs.  However, upto 30.4.2013, the vehicle was  plied 17,000KMs only and it was under warranty, but the Ops refused to change that part under warranty on false and  frivolous ground, which caused mental harassment to the complainant apart from financial loss.

 

2.                           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. 

 

 3.                         The OP No.1 filed  written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this Forum at Karnal has got no jurisdiction to  entertain and to decide the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the parties; that the complainant  has no cause of action  against OP No.1 as the dispute is  between the complainant and Ops no.2 & 3.

         

                             On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle became out of order while complainant was coming from Delhi to Karnal and same was repaired at Delhi by OP No.3. Thus, OP no.1 had no role in the whole episode and  it has been unnecessarily impleaded in the present complaint. It has also been submitted that case of the complainant was not covered under the extended warranty, therefore, the same was rightly rejected by the OPs.

 

4.                The OP No.2  filed separate  written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of the parties; that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute  any consumer dispute between the complainant and OP No.2 ;that the complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of the process of law and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle was in perfect and defect free condition at the time of sale.  No abnormality or problem was reported even during the  free inspection routine maintenance services.  As per information supplied by OP No.3, the vehicle was  towed to  workshop of  OP No.3  and attended to,  vide job card No. JC 13000891.  The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by expert service engineer and after diagnosis extra material (Oil)   ECM was found. The complainant might have got vehicle attended at some  unauthorized workshop,  which could be concluded by  presence of oil in the ECM and the same was found damaged due to tampering. Thus, there was negligence and careless use of the vehicle by the complainant. Since the repairs were not covered under the warranty, therefore, repair work was to be carried out on normal chargeable basis. It has further been alleged that complainant insisted the workshop to carry out repairs free of cost and threatened to approach this Forum if his unwanted demands were not met. The complainant was duly appraised of the reason for rejection of the warranty verbally as well as  vide letter dated 9.5.2013 issued by OP No.3.  The complainant to his entire will and volition gave the approval to the workshop to carry out repairs and after obtaining services  took the delivery of the vehicle without any protest. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has concealed the relevant facts from this Forum and filed the present complaint just to obtain unjustified gains. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

         

 5.                      The OP no.3 also  filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objection has been raised that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the vehicle was repaired at Delhi and as such the courts at Delhi have jurisdiction in the matter.

 

                     On merits, it has been pleaded that on receiving complaint, OP No.3 deputed its mechanic from  Lawrence  Road and thereafter shifted the vehicle to its workshop.  The matter was taken up with Maurti Company as to whether repair was to be done within warranty period or on chargeable basis.  Maruti Company refused to get the   repairs done within warranty period and that fact was informed to the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied

 

6.       In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.

 

7.                In evidence of Ops, affidavit of D.P.Chhopra G.M.(services) of OP No.1 E.O1/A, affidavit of Amandeep Singh Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.O2/B to Ex./O2/E have been tendered.

 

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and  OPs no.  1 and 2 and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

9.                The learned counsel for the OPs put a great thrust upon the contention that vehicle of the complainant was repaired at Delhi by OP no.3,  registered office of OP no.2 is situated at Delhi and the manufacturing unit  is at Gurgaon.  No cause of action  had accrued to the complainant at Karnal, therefore, this Forum at Karnal has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter in dispute. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that complainant might have got his vehicle checked from some unauthorized workshop, due to which ECM was damaged, therefore, the part was not covered under the warranty and the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected.  

 

10.               As per the case of the complainant engine of the car stopped in the area of Paharhganj, Delhi, while he was returning from Delhi to Karnal. He intimated the OP no.2 and his complaint was registered.  Mechanic of authorized service station i.e. Op no.3 checked the vehicle and shifted the same to the workshop, where extra material (OIL) was found in ECM. The car was repaired by Op no.3 and  an amount of Rs.24061/- was recovered from the complainant for repairs, as the OP no.2 refused to get the car repaired under warranty.  The plea of OP no.2 that complainant might have got checked his car from some unauthorized workshop cannot be accepted because no such observation was made by the mechanic/engineer of OP no.3. Even no documentary evidence has been placed on the file from which even an inference may be drawn that before making the complaint to Op no.3, complainant got his car checked from some unauthorized workshop. The OP no.2 has not explained as to what could be the other reason for presence of extra material (OIL) in the ECM. No report of any mechanical expert has been produced that extra material (OIL) could be found in the ECM on account of any negligent use of the car by the complainant. Under such circumstances, it is to be considered that problem in the car regarding presence of extra material (OIL) in ECM could be due to some manufacturing defect. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the OP no.2 to get  repaired the car of the complainant free of costs during warranty period.

 

11.               It is not in dispute that car was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1, the authorized dealer of OP no.2, at Karnal. The complainant was using the said car at Karnal. He had gone to Delhi from Karnal and the problem in the car developed while he was returning from Delhi to Karnal. Mere fact that problem occurred at Delhi and the complainant got his car repaired from authorized service station of OP no.2 at Delhi   i.e. OP No.3, does not establish in any manner  that cause of action wholly accrued to the complainant at Delhi. The car was purchased at Karnal, therefore,  we arrive at the conclusion that cause of action accrued to the complainant at Karnal and as such this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. In this regard, sustenance may be sought from the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in case titled Ashish Tayal Versus Ford India Limited and others 2011(1) CPC 290.

 

12.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.24061/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.  24.5.2013 till its actual   realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him together with a sum of Rs.5500/- toward litigation expenses. The OP no.2 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:1.09.2015                                                                                

                                                

                                                                 (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.Deepak Vohra Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh. A.K.Vohra Advocate for OP No.2.

                   None  for OP no.3.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to  1.09.2015.

 

Announced
dated:31.08.2015                                                                              

                                               

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

 

Present:        Sh.Deepak Vohra Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Sh. A.K.Vohra Advocate for OP No.2.

                   None  for OP no.3.

 

                    Vide our separate order of the even date, thepresent complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:01.09.2015                                                                              

                                                

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member