DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 107 of 01-04-2008<br /> Decided on : 22-04-2008 <br /> <br /> Pardeep Kumar Singla Advocate S/o Sh. Des Raj R/o State Bank of India Street, Near Civil Hospital, Mansa Tehsil and District Mansa.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Tara Automobiles (Authorised Maruti Dealer) Opposite I.T.I. Mansa Road, Bathinda through its Prop./Manager/Partner.<br /> 2.Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon through its Prop./General Manager/Owner/Partner.<br /> 3.Maruti Udyog Limited, 11th Floor, Jiwan Parkash 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. S.M. Goyal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal,Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Originally this Consumer Complaint with Registration No. 113 dated 2.7.2007 was pending before District Consumer Forum, Mansa. Vide order dated 19.3.2008, District Forum ,Mansa ordered it to be returned to the complainant alongwith relevant documents and evidence on the ground that District Forum, Bathinda has got the jurisdiction. Accordingly it was presented before this Forum. <br /> 2. Complainant through this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace his Zen Car with a new one; pay him Rs. 1.00 Lac as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- as cost and litigation expenses jointly and severally.<br /> 3. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint leading to its filing may be epitomised as under :<br /> 4. Brand new Zen Car Model 2005 bearing Chassis No. 842877, Engine No. 345784 was purchased by him on 4.7.05 against payment of Rs. 3,51,987/-. Assurance was given that it was a brand new car and was perfect and okay in all respects. He was further told that it would give smooth running. Letter dated 27.8.05 was received by him according to which coolant leakage problem from the cylinder block was noticed in a few Maruti Zen Cars which were manufactured around the time when car purchased by him was manufactured. He was advised to get the vehicle inspected at the workshop of opposite party No. 1. He was not informed that engine of the car was defective. On 5.9.05 vehicle was brought from Mansa to opposite party No. 1 for routine check up. In response to letter dated 27.8.05, opposite party No. 1 mentioned on the Job Order Card dated 5.9.05 under the demanded repair work done (coolant leakage check). It was not mentioned that the engine of the car is going to be changed. In the evening car was delivered to him stating that it was perfectly okay and was not having any defect. Thereafter he got the car registered with District Transport Officer, Mansa on 16.11.05. No intimation was given to him (complainant) or District Transport Officer, Mansa that engine of the vehicle was changed. He got the car registered as PB-31-E-0022 mentioning engine number as 345784. Further services of the car were got done from opposite party No. 1 on 4.10.05, 4.11.05 and 9.01.06 mentioning engine No. 345784 whereas engine was changed by opposite party No. 1 with a new one bearing No. 353006. Opposite party No. 1 kept him in dark by way of mentioning the old engine number on the Job Order Card. Even on 9.1.06 old engine number was mentioned on the job card. In the month of July, 2006 some scratches were caused on the vehicle while it was parked at Secretariat Complex, Bathinda by some unknown vehicle. Since Insurance of the car was going to expire in July, 2006 it was brought to his notice by Insurance employee of United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Mansa, that engine number of the car was not tallying with the engine number mentioned in the registration certificate. Opposite party No. 1 was immediately informed about the change of the engine of the car. Opposite party No 1 through Gulshan Rupal sent a letter dated 23.5.06 of New India Assurance Endorsement Certificate stating that correct engine is 353006. He approached the Works Manager of opposite party No. 1 and told as to why the engine of the car was changed without his consent. He issued letter with back date mentioning the change of the engine. He insisted as to why letter was not delivered to him earlier so that necessary changes could be got made in the Registration Certificate. It is further alleged by him that car with new engine is causing problems day by day regarding which intimation was given to opposite party No. 1 from time to time, but nothing has been done. Opposite party No. 1 was requested time and again to replace the car with a new one and to pay the compensation but they paid no heed. Car was got insured from United India Insurance Company Limited, Mansa with new engine. It is further alleged by him that the opposite parties had suppled defective car to him. Opposite parties have falsely given a warranty/guarantee of the performance, efficacy and length of life of the product which was not based on any adequate or proper test thereof. Value of the vehicle has been lowered down to Rs. 1.00 Lac. Till now District Transport Officer has not changed the engine of the car in the Registration Certificate. He is undergoing lot of mental agony and tension. Opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice as the engine might be an old and defective one due to which it has been changed. <br /> 5. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable against it; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complainant is not consumer; elaborate evidence as well as cross examination of witnesses is required due to which only civil court is competent to decide the controversy and complainant has concealed material facts. It admits that brand new Zen Car bearing chassis No. 842877 and Engine No. 345784 was purchased by the complainant from it on 4.7.05 for consideration of Rs. 3,51,987/-. Assurance was given that vehicle was perfectly okay in all angles. Letter dated 27.8.05 was issued to him. Accordingly car was brought by him. He was made aware that his engine assessory was going to be changed free of cost and he had agreed for the same. In acknowledgement of the change of engine assessory, job card was signed. Engine assessory which was changed with his consent was valuing Rs. 1.00 Lacs. It was changed free of cost. By no means, it can be imagined that a person would supply a product worth more than Rs. 1.00 Lac free of cost without informing the concerned person. At the time of purchase, in the computerized record maintained by it engine number and chassis of the vehicle were recorded. As per routine whenever the vehicle came for service after the replacement of engine assessory, computer took the same engine and chassis number. There was no intention to conceal anything particularly when complainant himself knew that his engine assessory has been changed. With malafide intention, complainant is alleging after using the vehicle for two years that he was not aware about the change of engine assessory. No complaint regarding any problem with new engine was reported. Engine assessory was changed in his presence and it is free from all defects.<br /> 6. Opposite parties No. 2 &3 submitted their version with preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable before this forum for want of territorial jurisdiction; complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim for compensation; complaint is without any cause of action and it is false and frivolous. They warrant that all the vehicles sold by its dealers are free from any defect in material and workmanship at the time of manufacture subject to the terms and conditions of warranty. Company undertakes to repair/replace any component shown to be defective due to faulty material or workmanship. It do not deny the issuance of the letter dated 27.8.05 by opposite party No. 1. They had suspected coolant leakage problem in a particular batch of engines. Accordingly dealers were advised to ask the customers to bring their vehicles at their workshop for inspection and to carry out necessary repairs or replacement of engines if need be free of charges. Dealer discloses the job done and the part replaced during repairs. All the job cards carry the details of job done on the last visit and on the second last visit. Motor vehicle Inspector is supposed to inspect the vehicle chassis number and engine number before registration. Front office at the workshop of dealer opens the job card on the basis of service booklet or the data available in their computer record. Subsequent job cards are opened on the said information without any ill will. Complainant was not kept in dark. They deny that engine is giving problem day by day. Workshop of opposite party No. 1 was visited by the complainant on 4.10.05, 4.11.05, 9.1.06, 16.6.06 and 9.10.06 but no defect was pointed out by him. He has no right for replacement of the vehicle. They deny that defective car was delivered. He has been provided with all the benefits of warranty. Their liability is as per terms and conditions and copy of warranty. Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alleged by the complainant stand denied by them.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted by the parties.<br /> 8. Admittedly new Zen car Model 2005 bearing engine number 345784, chassis No. 842877 manufactured by Maruti Udyog Limited was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1. Service Circular copy of which is Ex. R-3 was issued by the company to all the dealers. Contents of the letter are as under :- <br /> “ S E R V I C E Issue No. D-41/2005<br /> C I R C U L A R Date – 11.07.05<br /> Page – 01 of 01<br /> Category of Circular///////////////// Technical Matter//////////////////<br /> Subject : Zen Vehicles on Hold<br /> Model : Zen (MH)<br /> Part Name : Engine Assy.<br /> Part Number : Euro 2- 11099M72A11<br /> Euro 3- 11091M72A11<br /> <br /> This is to inform you that a few vehicles of the model Zen despatched to your dealership are suspected to have the problem of coolant leakage in future. The list of affected vehicles is given in the attached file (Vehicle xls).<br /> As an abundant precautionary measure, it has been decided to replace the engine assy. in the vehicles in stock. The replacement procedure of engine assy. is given in the attached file (Procedure.pdf)<br /> It is requested to replace the full engine assy. in all the affected vehicles in stock as per the service manual of Zen.(Refer page 6A-11 &6A-48). Engine assy. are being despatched to you through MUL spares division.<br /> Please ensure that the replaced engine is sent to MUL warranty immediately and properly packed in the same packing in which the engine assy. is sent to you from MUL.<br /> A report on the status of replacement should be sent on the following email Ids on daily basis as per the format enclosed.<br /> email Id : kk.gaur@maruti.co.in<br /> Ranjan.sharma@maruti.co.in<br /> <br /> All concerned may kindly be explained in details. <br /> (S.K.CHOUDHURY) <br /> Dy. GENERAL MANAGER (SERVICE-2)” <br /> 9. As per letter dated 11.7.05 company ordered to replace the full engine assy. of all the affected vehicles. It further gave the replacement procedure of the engine assy. Direction was further given for sending the replaced engine to MUL properly packed in the same packing in which new engine assy. was sent. Opposite party sent letter dated 27.8.05 to the complainant intimating that coolant leakage from the cylinder block has been noticed in a few Maruti Zen Cars which were manufactured around that time when vehicle purchased by him was manufactured and that he should get his vehicle inspected at its workshop to enable them to do the needful including replacement of any component under warranty free of charge. No specific information was given to the complainant in this letter dated 27.8.05, copy of which is Ex. C-4 that full engine assy. could be replaced. There was no complaint from the complainant regarding coolant leakage problem. Car was brought to opposite party No. 1 on 5.9.05 in response to letter dated 27.8.05. Job Order Card dated 5.9.05 was issued, copy of which is Ex. C-6 mentioning COOLENT LEKAGE CHK as demanded repairs/work done as reported problems. It bears signatures of the complainant. There is nothing in it to the effect that engine assy. was to be changed. Contents of affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Vikas Saini stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of the complainant which is Ex. C-1. Evidence does not establish that he was made aware about the change of the engine assy. or his consent was obtained. Ex. C-6, Ex. C-8, Ex. C-9, Ex. C-10 & Ex. C-11 are the copies of the Job Order Cards dated 5.9.05, 4.10.05, 4.11.05, 9.1.06 and 16.6.06 respectively. Ex. R-12 is the copy of the Job Order Card dated 9.10.06. There is no specific mention in them about the change of the engine assy No. 353006 inplace of old engine No. 345784. Old engine No. 345784 has been reflected in them. Contention of opposite party No. 1 that computer continued recording old engine number of the car in the record for such a long time, does not sound to reason. To the contrary, plea of the complainant that engine was changed without his consent gets strength as it continued showing the old engine number in the Job Order Cards. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 aver that front office at the workshop of dealer opens the Job card on the basis of service booklet or the data available in their computer record. Subsequent Job Cards are opened on the basis of this information. Submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that copies of the Job Order Cards produced by the complainant are the copies of the Job Order Cards prepared at the front office of the workshop of opposite party No. 1 and work done has been mentioned in the Job Order Cards with opposite party No. 1, cannot be accepted. Firstly this version does not sound to reason. Even if it it is taken for arguments sake that the work done is subsequently entered in the Job Order Cards after it is done, it should have been entered in the Job Order Cards with the complainant as well or that the copies of the Job Order Cards which have been brought on record by the opposite parties should have been supplied to him. A perusal of Ex. R-5, Ex. R-8, Ex. R-9, Ex. R-10, Ex. R-11 & Ex. R-12 reveals that so many additions have been made in them which are not there in Ex. C-6, Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-11. In Ex. R-5 engine assy. has been shown to have been replaced by way of writing it in hand in the Job Card dated 5.9.05 but it is not so in the Job Order Card dated 5.9.05 copy of which has been issued to the complainant.<br /> 10. As per Ex. R-3 company had ordered the dealers to replace the complete engine assy. in all the affected vehicles. Engine assy. were despatched to the dealers through Maruti Udyog Limited. Spares Division. Direction was also given to ensure that replaced engine was sent to Maruti Udyog Limited warranty immediately and properly packed in the same packing in which engine assy. was sent from the Company. Report on the status of replacement was to be sent at the email Ids on daily basis as per the format enclosed. When engine was changed, there should be compliance of this letter of the company for which evidence is lacking. There is nothing in the Job Order Cards that old engine was sent to the Company. No letter sent to the Company to this effect has been brought on record.<br /> 11. Ex. C-2 , Ex. C-7 & Ex. R-6 are the copies of certificate dated 5.9.05 of Sh. Baljinder Singh, General Manager of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 claims that complainant was made aware about the change of engine assy. and he had agreed for the same of his own accord. There is no despatch number on Ex. C-2, Ex. C-7 & Ex. R-6. If it was sent to the complainant by post, there should be postal receipt. There is no receipt showing that this letter was actually delivered to him on 5.9.05 or immediately thereafter. Replacement of the engine assy. shown in Ex. C-2, Ex. C-7 & Ex. R-6 is not shown in Ex. C-6 and specifically in other subsequent Job Order Cards with engine assy. 353006. It is a matter of common knowledge that if such certificate is issued, it is issued once and thereafter its copies may be prepared. Letter-head of Ex. 2 is different from the letter-head of Ex. C-7 and Ex. R-6. This shows that the genuineness and the preparation date of this certificate is a doubtful affair particularly when the delivery of the letter dated 5.9.05 to the complainant has not been proved by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence.<br /> 12. Complainant got the vehicle registered with District Transport Officer, Mansa on 16.11.05 as is evident from the copy Ex. C-12 of the certificate of registration. Complainant is an Advocate by profession. Had he been made aware by opposite party No. 1 regarding the change of the engine of his car, he could not avoid its disclosure to the District Transport Officer, Mansa while getting it registered with his office as non-mentioning of wrong engine number in the registration certificate could lead to several problems. This gives jolt to the story of opposite party No. 1 that he was told about the change of the engine and after he had agreed it was changed. <br /> 13. One thing is clear that engine has been changed by opposite party No. 1. He came to know about it in the month of May, 2006 as is clear from his affidavit Ex. C-1. There could be no reason for change of the engine except the one that there could be some manufacturing defect in it. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that value of the car has not been decreased due to change of the engine and complainant has not examined expert on this aspect of the matter, fetches no significance. Opposite party No. 1 changed the engine of the car on the basis of the letter issued by the Company. It cannot be said that such Company which is manufacturing different types of cars would not be having its valuers of the cars. If engine of the car of the complainant has been changed they could issue certificate that with the change of the engine market value of the car has not gone down. We are constrained to remark that once the engine of the car is changed, it certainly leads to reduction in the price of the car.<br /> 14. In view of our foregoing discussion, we conclude that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties are writ large.<br /> 15. Complainant is alleging that the new engine fitted in his car is giving problem day by day but nothing has been done by the opposite parties at their end. There is no satisfactory evidence on this aspect of the matter. Complainant has not disclosed those specific problems/defects in the changed engine. No expert evidence has been led by him to prove that the alleged defects in the changed engine are such which are not curable. If changed engine was giving problems and car is not running smoothly , complainant could deliver the car to the opposite parties. Till 9.10.06, car had run 26614 Kms. It is not the case of the complainant that after 9.10.06 car is not being used by him. Hence plea of the complainant on this aspect of the matter is not substantiated. <br /> 16. As discussed above, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in changing the engine of the car without his consent. He will have to get the engine of the car in the registration certificate changed. For that, there will be botheration and harassment to him. As discussed above, value of the car has gone down. There is nothing on the record that additional warranty on the changed engine has been given. Complainant may also undergo difficulties concerning the insurance of the vehicle. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment. In these circumstances, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainant. In our view apt and appropriate compensation is Rs. 50,000/-.<br /> 17. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 18. In the premises written above, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Liability to pay this amount is joint as well as several.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act would carry interest @9% till realisation.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 22-04-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />