Delhi

North East

CC/119/2015

Rahul Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 119/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Rahul Aggarwal S/o Shri R.K. Gupta R/o:- 15, Ram Nagar, Street No. 1 Pahar Ghanj, New Delhi-110055	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	M/s Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. 485A, Main GT Road Jhilmil, Shahdara, Delhi-110095   M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Corporate Office: 1, Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070	Opposite Party No.1                 Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

06.04.2015 07.07.2022 16.09.2022

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

     Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant had purchased a Car, vide Invoice No. PRI13000192 dated 18.08.2013 Model No. Maruti Wagon R (Green) Lxi-WMRCCS2 having Engine No. K10BN 4566722, Chassis No. MA3EWDE1S00608031, bearing Registration No. DL 5C J 5818 from Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. M/s Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. (Dealer). Opposite Party No. 2 is manufacturer of the said vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 
2. As per the policy of Opposite Party No. 2, three free services were given on the said vehicle. Complainant got all the three free services done timely in Opposite Party No.1 workshop. At the time of free services Opposite Party No. 1 never found any defect in the vehicle.
3. The Complainant stated that on 22.05.2014, the car suddenly got brokedown and the Complainant lodged a complaint in Opposite Party No.2 bearing No. 790087 dated 22.05.14. The Complainant stated that the Opposite Party No.2 send his technician to examine the car and he stated that the clutch of the car was week and he had to tow his car to the workshop with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Complainant stated that he had the Auto Card by which in case of breakdown he was not liable to pay any toeing charges but technician of Opposite Party No.2 refused to accept the Auto Card and the Complainant had to leave his car there only. On next day i.e. 23.05.14 the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 and they also refused to accept the Auto Card and offered the towing service with a cost of Rs. 500/- having no other option the Complainant agreed to pay the towing charges. The Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 informed that the clutch of the car needs to be changed and the Complainant got surprised that the car had hardly run 13611 km and he got serviced his car on 10239 km then no one pointed out that problem. The Complainant stated that he got his car repaired with a cost of Rs. 6,489/-(after discount of Rs. 764/-). The Complainant stated he lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.2 in this regard on 26.05.14 through e-mail. The Complainant stated that he got a very vague reply to the e-mail dated 26.05.14. The Complainant again sent an e-mail dated 28.05.14 to refund his money Rs.6,489/- and Rs. 500/- towing charges. The Complainant stated that on 30.05.14 the technician of Opposite Party No.2 came and refunded Rs. 500/- and when he enquire about Rs. 6,489/-, he advised him to talk to the customer care manager of Opposite Party No.1 and he also refused to refund the amount and also refused to investigate the matter. The Complainant stated that defected clutch and flywheel are manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and officials of Opposite Party No.1 failed to inform him about the defects in car during the first three services this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 did not take any action regarding this matter this shows deficiency on part of Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant has prayed for refund of               Rs. 6,489/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. He has also prayed for          Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency of service and     Rs. 50,000/- on account of legal expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

4. Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that Complainant has purchased a car from it. It is submitted that the Complainant did not point out any defect in the car regarding clutch plates during the services of the car. It is admitted that Complainant called the Helpline on 22.05.14 and he lodged the complaint. It is denied that the technician of Maruti on Road Service (MOS) demanded Rs. 1,000/- for towing the car to the workshop. It is denied that at the time of purchasing the car the Complainant was told that in case of any breakdown anywhere in india, the Complainant would be given free of cost service including towing and repair charges. It is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the car nor there was any deficiency of service on its part. It is alleged that damage to the clutch plates could be due to the incorrect / wrong driving of the car. It is submitted that the change of clutch plates is not covered under the warranty. It has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

5. Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that the Complainant failed to abide by the warranty terms and conditions. The Complainant was negligent in driving the car and its maintenance. It has denied the allegations made by the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

Rejoinders to the Written Statements of the Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant filed separate replications to the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties and he has reaffirmed the averments made in the complaint and has denied the averments made in the written statements.

Evidence of the Parties

7. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. To support its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Qamar Zaidi, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No.1. In his affidavit, he has supported his case as mentioned in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 in support of his case has filed the affidavit of            Shri Rajiv Shah, Territory Service Manager for Opposite Party No.2. In his affidavit, he has supported the assertions made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2.

Arguments and Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a car from Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacture of the said car. It is his case that the clutch plates of the car were damaged after the car had done only 13,611 km. The Complainant got the clutch plates replaced on payment of Rs. 6,489/-. The case of the   Opposite Party is that the car did not have any manufacturing defect and the damage to the clutch plates could be due to the incorrect/ wrong driving of the car. However, the Opposite Parties did not place on record anything on record to show that the damage to the clutch plates was due to the incorrect/ wrong driving of the car. In the normal course, clutch plates are not damaged after running 13,000/14,000 km. Therefore, the defence of the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted.
9.   In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. M/s. Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. being the seller of the car shall pay the amount of Rs. 6,489/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a.  from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party No.1 shall also pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
10. Order announced on 16.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President