Haryana

Panchkula

cc/225/2014

VIKAS SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MODERN AUTOMOBILES & others - Opp.Party(s)

SUBHASH ADLAKHA.

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	225 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	13.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	22.04.2015

                                                                                          

Vikas Sharma son of Sh.Raj Kumar, R/o House No.142/2, Upper Mohalla, Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Modern Automobiles through its Proprietor, SCO No.411, Sector-8, Panchkula.
2. Modern Automobiles through its Proprietor, Plot No.318, Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. through its Managing Director, Plot No.1, Nalson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110070.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Saurabh Adlakha, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.Amardeep Sharma, Adv., for the Ops No.1 & 2.

                             None for the Op No.3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant-Vikas Sharma has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that the complainant has purchased a Maruti Celerio VXi car from the Ops No.1 and 2 vide bill dated 24.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.4,19,000/- which was registered vide registration No.HR-49-D-8880 and got financed from Bank of Baroda, Pinjore. Thereafter, the complainant plied the vehicle with utmost care and got the service of the vehicle time to time. The complainant got the first service of the vehicle from Op No.2 and the mechanic of agency of the Op No.2 had assured the complainant that there was no defect in the vehicle. The complainant was surprised when he noticed that there was a manufacturing defect in the steering assembly and front tyres of the vehicle as the steering and the front drum of wheels started creating loud noise while driving the car and clutch of the vehicle was having jerking problem. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Op No.2 for second service and complained about the defect in the vehicle and the complainant also requested for the rectification of the fault but the OP No.2 told the complainant that after few days, the same would be removed from the car. Thereafter, the complainant had plied the vehicle but it started giving more noise from its steering and front drums of wheels. On 30.06.2014, the complainant visited the Op No.2 for rectification of defect and the Op No.2, after opening the steering kit, told the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and whole of the assembly of steering would have to be changed and the same would be changed after 15 days. On advice of the Op No.2, the complainant got changed the assembly of steering and the OP No.2 assured the complainant that the defect has been removed from the vehicle and it would not create any noise in future. The advisor of Op No.2 had told the complainant that the clutch assembly would change at Chandigarh Service Station and the complainant had got changed the clutch assembly from Chandigarh. But after changing the whole assembly with new steering, the vehicle started giving noise as usual. Thereafter, the complainant again contacted the OP No.2 and complained about the same but the Op No.2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and also told that there was manufacturing defect and the Op No.3 would look into the matter. The Ops No.1 and 2 are the authorized dealer of the Op No.3 and are liable to rectify the defect from the vehicle. The complainant is an Advocate by profession and is having need of the vehicle every time. The complainant had issued a legal notice dated 18.09.2014 with a request to replace the defective vehicle with new one within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice but the Ops did not comply with the legal notice. This act of the Ops amount to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 and 2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant purchased the car on 26.02.2014 thereafter; the complainant visited the Ops on 20.03.2014 for 1^st service (Annexure R1/3) of the vehicle and was satisfied with the services provided by the Ops. Thereafter, the complainant brought the car to the Ops on 12.05.2014 for 2^nd service (Annexure R1/4) of the car and made a complaint for the front side noise in the car and the car was completely checked & some adjustments were also made. It is submitted that the vehicle was kept under observations as per manufacturer instructions. On 26.05.2014, the complainant again contacted the Ops with the complaint of noise in the car and the Ops adjusted the dumper of the steering of the car. The complainant again brought the car on 30.06.2014 and the Ops, on the instructions of the manufacturer i.e. MSIL, changed the steering assembly under warranty approved by Mr.Vikas Saini, the TSM (Territorial Service Manager Maruti). The complainant brought the car on 14.07.2014 for 3^rd service and the noise in the car still persisted, the Ops changed the steering coloum assembly, thereafter, the car was sent to Modern Auto Chandigarh for front side noise and clutch vibration. It is submitted that the car was again checked properly in the presence of Mr.Vikas Saini (TSM) and kept under observation. After observing the working of car, on 13.08.2014, the clutch set and joint stabilizer Bar of the car was replaced under warranty. It is submitted that the complainant again complained about the problem regarding the noise in the front side of the car and thereafter, necessary adjustments were done and parts were lubricated. It is submitted that as per manufacturer policy, the Ops always attended and repaired the car of the complainant with best of their efforts/equipments. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.3 being the manufacturer of vehicle in question stands warranty for a certain period and subject to certain terms & conditions as set out in the Owners’ Manual & Service Booklet and the same has been discharged as per terms & conditions of warranty. It is submitted that the liability of OP No.3 being the manufacturer of the vehicle was limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause-3 of the warranty policy as set out in the Owners’ Manual and Service Booklet. It is submitted that the Op No.3 manufacture the Maruti Suzuki brand of vehicle under the technical knowhow of Suzuki Motor Corporation of Japan. It is submitted that all vehicles which are manufactured by Op No.3 underwent stringent quality control test/check before dispatch to dealer for onward sale to individual customers and the dealer also carried pre-delivery inspection (PDI) before sale. It is submitted that after going through all tests, the Op No.3 gave warranty like any other manufacturer to set any defect cropping up during the ordinary use of vehicle during the warranty period. It is submitted that the Op No.3 is a customer friendly company and has been adjudged No.1 for the last 15 years in a row in a consumer satisfaction survey conducted by JD Power Asia Pacific. It is submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle in question to the workshop for some specific problem and the same were examined and attended to as per warranty. It is submitted that the complainant had taken the delivery after satisfying himself with the working of the vehicle and the complainant never reported the problem of jerking during the visits of the vehicle to the workshop. It is submitted that the complainant reported the problem of noise from suspension and clutch vibration on 23.07.2014 and the same were checked and found to be ok. It is submitted that the vehicle was brought to the workshop with the problem of “Clutch Overhaul” and the clutch set and front stabilizer were replaced free of costs under warranty. The next visit of the vehicle to the workshop was for accidental repairs and the same were carried out on payment basis. It is submitted that on 11.09.2014, the complainant reported the problem of noise from steering and to satisfy the customer once again, the “Steering Lower Shaft R&R” were replaced free of costs under warranty. It is submitted that the Op No.3 has fulfilled its warranty obligations provided to the complainant as per clause 3 of the warranty. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/10 and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 has not tendered the evidence after availing many opportunities and the evidence of the Op No.3 was closed by court order.
5. We have heard the complainant appeared in person and learned counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 and appraised the material on record carefully.
6. The copy of the retail invoice (Annexure R1/1) shows that the complainant-Vikas Sharma purchased one Maruti Celerio VXi car from OP No.1 on 26.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.4,19,000/-. Admittedly, the car was under warranty when the complainant made a complaint to the Ops No.1 and 2 regarding defect in steering assembly and front tyre of the vehicle in question as the steering and front drum of wheels were creating loud noise while driving the car and clutch of the vehicle was having jerking problem. On 12.05.2014 at the time of second service (Annexure R1/3). Thereafter the complainant again brought to the notice of Ops No.1 and 2 regarding the abovesaid defects on 26.05.2014 (Annexure R1/5) and 30.06.2014 (Annexure R1/6). On 14.07.2014, the Op No.2 replaced the steering assembly under warranty. The complainant again made a complaint on 23.07.2014 and 13.08.2014 (Annexure R1/8 and R1/9) regarding suspense noise in the vehicle. On 13.08.2014, the suspension front removed & checked and suspension noise & clutch vibration was kept under observation (Annexure R1/9). On 11.09.2014, the complainant again made the complaint regarding noise from steering (Annexure R1/10). The above said documents show that the complainant has been repeatedly making complaints to the Ops regarding the defects. It is admitted case of the Ops No.1 and 2 that the complainant purchased the car on 26.02.2014 and visited the premises of the Ops on 20.03.2014 for the first service of the vehicle (Annexure R1/2). The complainant thereafter, brought the car to the Ops on 12.05.2014 for second service and the compliant for the front side noise in the car. The car was completely checked and some adjustments were made. The car was kept under observations as per manufacturer instructions (Annexure R1/3). Thereafter, on 16.05.2014, the car was again reported to the Ops as the noise in the car was still persisting and the Ops adjusted the dumper of the steering of the car in question (Annexure R1/4). The complainant again brought the car on 30.06.2014 (Annexure R1/5). The Ops on the instructions of manufacturer i.e. MSIL changed steering assembly under warranty approved by Mr.Vikas Saini, the TSM (Territorial Service Manager Maruti). On 14.07.2014, at the time of third service, the complainant again brought to the notice of the Ops that noise in the car still persisted and the Ops changed the steering column assembly under warranty. Thereafter, the car was sent to the Modern Auto Chandigarh for front side noise and clutch vibration. The car was again checked in the presence of Mr.Vikas Saini, the TSM and kept under observation (Annexure R1/7). On 13.08.2014, the clutch set and joint stabilizer Bar of the car was replaced under warranty (Annexure R1/8). The complainant again brought to the notice of the Ops regarding noise in front side of the car and accordingly necessary adjustments were done and parts were lubricated on 13.08.2014 (Annexure R1/9). According to the complainant, the defects have not been rectified and he is entitled to replacement with new car. The abovesaid documents on the file established defects in the car as alleged by the complainant. The Ops No.1 and 2 have not produced the affidavit of any engineer or mechanic who carried out the repairs in the car of the complainant, the proof that defects in the car of the complainant had been removed and the same was perfectly OK after repair. The Ops No.1 and 2 simply filed an affidavit of Sh.J.L.Sachdeva, Manager Modern Automobiles, SCO No.411, Sector 8, Panchkula who never supervised the repair of the car or addressed the problem in car of the complainant personally. The non-production of any affidavit of mechanic/engineer of Ops No.1 and 2 or any report made by them about the condition of the car of the complainant warrants an adverse inference against the Ops No.1 and 2. The mere assertion of the Ops No.1 and 2 in the written statement that repairs were made on the instructions of the manufacturer i.e. MSIL approved by Mr.Vikas Saini, the TSM does not prove that there is no defect in the car of the complainant. The documents (Annexure R1/2 to R1/10) produced by the Ops themselves show frequent complaints of the defects in the vehicle, the burden shifted on the Ops No.1 and 2 to prove that the defects in question has been rectified. Since the Ops No.1 and 2 have failed to discharge this onus, therefore, we find deficiency in service on their part. However, the complainant has not produced any expert report which shows that there are some manufacturing defects in the vehicle of the complainant due to which it requires replacement. Consequently, we do not find just ground for issuing direction to the Ops to replace the car of the complainant with a new one.
7. In view of the facts recorded in para 6 of this judgment, no liability for the deficiency in service can be fastened upon OP No.3. The complaint against the Op No.3 is dismissed.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. The Ops No.1 and 2 are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To repair the vehicle of the complainant and hand over it to him in perfectly working condition to his entire satisfaction.

(ii)     To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(iii)    To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

9. Let the order b­e complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

22.04.2015  ANIL SHARMA         ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                 MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.  

 

                                            

                                                          DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT