Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 344

                                                                    Instituted on     : 27.07.2018

                                                                    Decided on       : 24.11.2023

SumitSangwan age 29 years son of Shri Vidyanand, present resident of H.No.1273, Sector-4 Extension, HUDA, Rohtak.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. M/s Jag Mohan Motors, Sonipat Road, Head Office at Rohtak.
2. M/s Jag Mohan Motors, Branch office situated at Rohtak Road, Near Radha Swami Satsang Ashram Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani, through its Prop./Manager/Authorised Person.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. SumitHooda, Advocate for complainant.

                   Smt. LovinaSingla, Advocate for opposite party No.1& 2.

                   Sh.Gourav AryaAdvocate for opposite party No.3.

                                       ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a Maruti Swift VDI from the respondent no.1 which is authorized dealership of resplendent no.2 vide invoice/bill no.008.SL14001390 dated 09.02.2015 for Rs.606836/-. Complainant registered the said car with regional Transport authority vide registration no.HR-16P-5505 and the same has been duly insured.  After purchasing the said car, complainant had sold the same to his cousin brother namely Amit s/o BarhmaNand. But since the said car is defective one and after some time he returned the same to the complainant with the complaint that there is heavy defect in engine starting. Complainant has also noticed that from the date of its purchase, there was defect in the car in question because the said car suddenly stopped and did not start. The complainant made a complaint to the respondent and told about the aforesaid defect. Complainant visited the workshop of respondent no.1 on 23.02.2015 and the car of the complainant was checked by the employees of respondent no.1 vide bill no.BC14011132 dated 23.02.2015 and charged Rs.395/- from the complainant whereas this service was 1^st free service. But there was no improvement in the said defect and the said car again and again given problem. Complainant visited the workshop on 03.04.2015 and they again charged Rs.674/- from the complainant whereas this service was running repair service. Complainant again visited the workshop on 27.04.2015 and they done wheel balancing-4 wheel & wheel alignment and charged Rs.644.57/- whereas this service was 2^nd free service. Complainant again visited the workshop on 29.06.2015 and this time they charged Rs.4632/- whereas this was 3^rd free service. Complainant visited the workshop of respondent no.1 on various dates as there was continuous problem in the car in question, the detail of which are as under:-

Respondent No.1 & 3 gave warranty that the vehicle engine is under warranty for any defect either for 4 years or 80000 km whichever is earlier. The complainant’s vehicle engine had run only for 67 thousand km at last visit to respondent no.1 official workshop. Complainant continuously requested the respondent no.1 & 2 either to remove the problem or to replace the defective car but till now neither the opposite parties have paid any heed to the request of complainant nor the problem of the aforesaid vehicle has been sorted out. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.606836/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 09.02.2015 till its actual payment or to replace the defective car with new one without any defect of same standard and cost and also to pay a sum of Rs.350000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that complainant himself stating that he had sold the above said car to his cousin brother and the cousin brother of the complainant returned the car to the complainant. It is further submitted that when the car developed the problem, why the cousin brother of the complainant did not approach the company for necessary repairs as now Amit has become the owner of the vehicle. If the car was having manufacturing defect, the owner should have approached the company immediately. The owner of the car did not approach the company for more than three years proves that the entire story concocted in the complaint is false and baseless. The complainant has not availed service of his vehicle in time as per guidelines provided by answering opposite party. Normal maintenance service required other than three free services and there are certain limitations to free service. The oil and fluid changes, headlight aiming, fastener retightening, wheel balancing, wheel alignment, tyre rotation, cleaning injector, adjustments of carburetor, etc. are not provided free and these facts were told to the complainant at the time of sale of vehicle by the respondent company. It is also submitted that no date has been provided in the complaint regarding sale of vehicle to Amit or repurchase of vehicle from Amit by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant informed the respondent company about the manufacturing defect on 23.02.2015. Infact the complainant informed the company about the manufacturing defecton 27.05.2018. The complainant was provided service of the vehicle by the respondent company as per company policy and the charges were also charged as per the company policy.  All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle in question has been plied for more than 69100 kms. as on 20.08.2018. Complainant has submitted that he had sold the vehicle to his cousin brother Amit but he has neither mentioned the details related to date of sale of the vehicle in question, documents of sale of the vehicle in question nor has he placed any material on record to establish the relationship with Mr. Amit and now the registered owner of the vehicle is Mr. Amit. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question has been again sold to Mr. Jagmendersingh which is evident from the VAAHAN portal screenshot. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of OP no.1 on 23.02.2015 at 941 kms and 27.04.2015 at 5370 kms. for 1^st free inspection service and 2^nd free inspection service respectively. But any concern related to engine was not reported by the complainant on both the visits which indicates the false nature of the complaint.  The vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of opposite party No.1 from 23.02.2015 to 27.05.2018 for 14 times for various reasons like service, washing, running repairs etc. but the alleged concern of engine was not reported  in any of these visits. The alleged concern of engine stalling was reported for the first time to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 30.05.2018 at 64773kms.. The vehicle was inspected and no abnormality was observed in the vehicle in question. The vehicle has always been attended as per the terms and conditions of warranty and the extended warranty concluded on 08.02.2019 by efflux of time. The vehicle in question had a manufacturer’s warranty for 24 months or 40000 kms., whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the complainant availed an extended warranty which starts after the expiry of manufacturer’s warranty and is valid upto another 40000 kms. for 2 years, whichever is earlier.   The vehicle in question has always been attended as per the terms and conditions of warranty and extended warranty. Had there been any defect, the vehicle would not have been plied for more than 69110 kms. as on 20.08.2018. Complainant himself has assessed defect in the vehicle for which the complainant is neither qualified nor have any expertise to comment. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and the same was closed on 11.01.2023.  On   the other   hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R2 and closed his evidence on 18.05.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party Noi.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/6 and closed his evidence on 18.05.2023.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                In the present case grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question had become defective during warranty period as well as extended warranty period but the opposite parties have charged the amount of repairs from the complainant during warranty period. It is further contended that the vehicle in question has gone to the service station numerous times, which shows that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. To prove the same complainant has placed on record copy of Tax/Vehicle & Charges invoice Ex.C3 to Ex.C9. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 09.02.2015  and the warranty of the vehicle was for 2 years or 400000/- kms. whichever is earlier. Thereafter the complainant had taken the extended warranty after payment of an amount of Rs.8646/-, which is placed on record as Ex.C2, as per which extended warranty is valid 08.02.2019 or 80000 kms. whichever is earlier. As per service reports Ex.C4 to Ex.C9 there was defect of ‘Engine Stalling’ and the engine was not starting. As per Ex.C5 to Ex.C9 complainant had spent an amount of Rs.68508/- on the repair of vehicle, whereas the vehicle in question was under extended warranty upto 08.02.2019. The extended warranty certificate has been placed on record as Ex.C2 by the complainant, which shows that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.8646/- regarding the “extended warranty platinum” and the same is valid upto 08.02.2019 or 80000 kms. whichever is earlier based on the terms and conditions given overleaf. But the overleaf is blank. The payment of extended warranty has been received by the Sales/Works Manager with stamp and on the bottom of the certificate the address of the registered office is mentioned as under: “Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regd. Office Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110071 Service Tax No.AAACM0829QST003, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015”. Meaning thereby the manufacturer has issued the extended warranty.  But the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.68508/- on the repair of vehicle during warranty period whereas the same should not have been charged by the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party no.3 being the manufacturer is liable to pay the expenses incurred by the complainant during warranty period.At the time of arguments, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to one Amit and thereafter the same was further sold. It is also observed that the RC of the vehicle is in the name of Amit and the user of the vehicle is Sumit(complainant) who has transferred the vehicle in the name of his cousin brother Amit. The bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 are in the name of SumitSangwan and Ex.C9 is in the name of Amit.  Hence it is proved that the complainant Sumit and his cousin brother Amit have incurred expenses on the repair of vehicle. Hence  both are entitled for the alleged amount in equal share.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.68508/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand five hundred and eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.08.2018 till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant Sumit(user) and theownerAmit s/o BarhmaNand in equal share. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

24.11.2023.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.