DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Shri Shah Tanveer Aziz, aged about 34 years s/o Shri Abdul Aziz Shah r/o House No.1247, Sector 68, Mohali, Punjab.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Modern Automobiles through its Manager, 4 M.W. Industrial Area, Phase – I, Chandigarh UT 160002.

--- Opposite party

2.                 Maruti Suzuki India Limited through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, SCO 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh UT 160018.

3.                 Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Managing Director, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110007.

--- Proforma Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. N.P. Sharma, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Aftab Singh, Counsel for OP No.1

                        Sh. Parmod Jain, Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Shah Tanveer Aziz has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs against opposite party No.1:-

i)                   To make refund of the sum of Rs.955/- received by it and Rs.3,448/- paid by the complainant for repairs.

ii)                To make payment of Rs.15,000/- as lump sum compensation

iii)              To make payment of Rs.15,000/- as punitive damages.

iv)              To pay Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 20.11.2006 he purchased a car (Wagon-R VXI model) from opposite party No.1. The said car had warranty for two years.  Later on it was extended for another 12 months or upto 60000 kms. whichever was earlier. 

                   According to the complainant, in the month of November, 2010, he was to visit Jammu and Srinagar for his personal work.  So, he took the car to opposite party No.1 for thorough checkup and service.  Opposite party No.1 carried out the service of the car and charged a sum of Rs.955/- vide receipt dated 4.11.2010. The complainant was assured that the car was thoroughly checked and it was fit for long journey.  Accordingly, the complainant, on 13.11.2010 alongwith his family started the journey.  However, while on the way to Srinagar from Jammu, the car started giving the problem of heating. After some time, smoke started emanating from the engine.  The complainant stopped the car and opened the bonnet.  He found that the container of the coolant was empty.  He checked the container and found that there was no hole in it.   Thus, according to the complainant, opposite party No.1 failed to top up the coolant resulting in heating of the engine. 

                   He made a call to opposite party No.1 to seek guidance and advice, but there was no response.  Ultimately, he took the car to “Thiland Automobiles” at Srinagar.  The proprietor of the said workshop claimed that it was a Maruti Suzuki service station. The mechanic at the said service station opened the bonnet and after checking the engine told the complainant that the engine was damaged because there was no coolant in the car.  The car was repaired at the service station and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,448/-.  It has further been averred that after return to Chandigarh, the complainant again visited the premises of opposite party No.1 and intimated about the inconvenience caused to him but they refused to compensate the complainant. Ultimately the complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite parties, but to no effect.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 

3.                           In its written reply opposite party No.1 admitted the sale of the car in question to the complainant.  It has also been admitted that the car was brought to its service station for service on 4.11.2010 and that the service as well as necessary repairs were carried out.  It has also been admitted that a sum of Rs.955/- was charged for the said service and repairs.  It has also been admitted that the complainant again visited its premises and intimated about the inconvenience caused to him. 

                   According to the opposite party, the complainant was asked to bring the vehicle for inspection. The complainant brought the vehicle on 15.1.2011 where it was inspected by the Territorial Service Manager from Maruti Company.  During the course of inspection it transpired that the alleged parts of the vehicle were not replaced.  In these circumstances, according to the opposite party, the allegations of the complainant that he suffered a loss of Rs.3,448/- for getting the car repaired at M/s Thiland Automobiles, Srinagar are absolutely false.  So, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for it.  It has also been averred that at the relevant time the vehicle was not under warranty and it was not liable to repair the same free of cost.

                   According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           Opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their joint written reply also did not dispute the facts with regard to the sale of the vehicle in question.  However, it has been pleaded that the opposite parties were not responsible for the repair jobs as the same were beyond the purview of warranty policy which expired long back on 19.11.2009.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not raised any specific allegations against them, therefore, the complainant deserves to be dismissed qua them. 

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           It is the admitted case of the parties that before going to Jammu, the complainant took the car to the premises of opposite party No.1 for thorough check up and service.  It is also the admitted case of the parties that the service was carried out and the opposite party charged a sum of Rs.955/-.  This fact is also evident from Annexure C-4. 

7.                           The case of the complainant is that while going to Srinagar from Jammu, the car started heating and ultimately smoke started emanating from the engine.  So, the complainant stopped the car by the side of the road and checked the engine.  He found that there was no coolant in the container.  It has further been averred by the complainant that thereafter he called opposite party No.1 through mobile but there was no response.  Ultimately, he took the car to “M/s Thiland Automobiles”, Srinagar and got it repaired.  There he was told that the engine was damaged because of excessive heating as there was no coolant in the car.

8.                           In view of the above said facts, it was vehemently argued by the ld. Counsel for the complainant that the car got heated because opposite party No.1 failed to refill/top up the coolant resulting in heating of the engine and damage thereto. Thus, according to the complainant, he had to pay a sum of Rs.3,448/- because of the negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite party No.1.

9.                           On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has relied upon the report (Annexure R-1/1), the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

“……………In our inspection, we have not found the mentioned parts are replaced and same has been shown to customer, because to replace this parts many fittings needed to be opened and opening re-fitting will leave marks on spanners on nuts and bolts and fitting of clips of wiring hareness will also be having appearance of repairs which is not found in vehicle…..”

It is pertinent to mention here that the affidavit of the person who inspected the car has not been placed on record.  In the absence of the affidavit of the person who inspected the car, no reliance can be placed on this report.   The person who has filed the affidavit (Sh. Satvir Singh), on behalf of opposite party No.1, had not inspected the vehicle nor has he deposed that he was present at the time of inspection. In these circumstances, the version of the opposite party to the effect that the repairs at Srinagar, as alleged in the complaint, were not carried out, is not fortified by any cogent evidence. 

10.                       On the other hand, the version of the complainant is supported by the affidavit of the complainant as well as the affidavit of Shri Mudassir Hussain Shah who is the proprietor/Manager of M/s Thiland Automobiles, Srinagar where the repairs were carried out.

11.                       Hence, from the material on record it is proved that the car got heated resulting into damage to the engine because of the failure on the part of opposite party No.1 to refill/top up the coolant.  As the car was taken to the premises of opposite party No.1 with intimation to it that the complainant wanted to undertake a long journey, so it was its duty to check the car thoroughly and see whether the coolant, engine oil, gear oil etc. were in proper quantity or not.  However, it failed to do so.  In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on part of opposite party No.1 and the complaint needs to be allowed.  

12.                       There is no allegation against opposite parties No.2 & 3 nor any relief has been claimed qua them. They have simply been arrayed as proforma respondents.   Therefore, the complaint qua opposite parties No.2 & 3 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.                       In view of the above discussion the present complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed as under :-

i)                   to pay the amount of Rs.3,448/- to the complainant paid by him to M/s Thiland Automobiles, Srinagar for repair of the car.

ii)                To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment

iii)              To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation

14.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

15.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11.12.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER