BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.55 of 2017

Date of Instt. 28.02.2017

Date of Decision: 05.07.2017

Anant Kumar Arora Advocate S/o Sh. Satnam Dass Arora R/o 263, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Lovely Autos, Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Nitish Kumar, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Arun Gupta, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is the owner of Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No.PB08-CD-5757. The OP No.1 is the authorized service centre of OP No.2, who is the manufacturer of Maruti Swift Car. OP No.2 is vicariously liable for the act of OP No.1, since OP No.2 has given a Franchise of service centre of the Maruti vehicle to OP No.1. The complainant has been getting his aforesaid car serviced from time to time as per service schedule provided in the booklet given to the complainant at the time of purchase of car from OP No.1.

2. That the complainant got the service of the said vehicle on 10.02.2017 at mileage of 54460 and paid a sum of Rs.5715.00 in all for the service done by said Lovely Autos, authorized service centre vide Cash Memo No.BC16018925 dated 10.02.2017. At the time of service, the complainant was told that each and every part of the car has been checked and the car is road worthy and the next service shall be got done after 5000 kilometer. That on 12.02.2017, when the vehicle has only been driven for about 15-20 Kms and was standing at his house, suddenly the clutch of the car stopped working and it was totally free. The complainant informed M/s Lovely Autos, Jalandhar i.e. OP No.1 in the early morning i.e. on 13.02.2017 regarding the condition of vehicle and the vehicle was taken to the workshop of OP No.1 for repairing the fault in the vehicle. On checking, the complainant was told by the OPs that the entire clutch oil in the chamber has been leaked and there is not even a single drop of oil in the chamber of the clutch and thereafter the complainant was told that the clutch plates as well as rings are to be changed, since these parts have been damaged due to leakage of the oil in the clutch chamber. The complainant told the manager of service centre of OP No.1 that it is due to their fault, since the vehicle has been serviced on 10.02.2017 and they are supposed to check each and every part of the vehicle prior to saying it is a road worthy. But the manager of the service centre of OP No.1 refused to listen to the complainant and stated that they did not check the said part of the vehicle at the time of service, since it is an internal part. The complainant told him that what was the fun of coming to authorized service centre for repair of vehicle if the vehicle was not to be checked properly by them. The fault, if any lies on the part of the OP No.1, who had serviced the vehicle on 10.02.2017 and has not seen the portion of the vehicle i.e. the clutch part of the vehicle and the clutch plates and rings etc have been damaged due to their fault and without any fault of the complainant. The complainant asked the service manager that they have no right to charge any amount from the complainant for the correction of fault in the vehicle i.e. replacement of clutch plates, rings and labour etc.

3. OP No.1 has charged a sum of Rs.9009/- from the complainant on 13.02.2017 for the replacement of Clutch Plates, Rings and labor etc and has given the bill of Rs.9009/-. Further since the payment was made through debit card, the said service centre has also charged Rs.90/- as service charges of the machine installed by them for debit card. In all a sum of Rs.9099/- has been debited from the debit card of the complainant. The OP No.1 has no right whatsoever to charge Rs.90/- over and above the actual bill of Rs.9009/-. The conduct of the staff in dealing with the complainant was very poor and they have failed to satisfy him qua the charging of Rs.9099/- illegally from the complainant and thereafter the complainant made a complaint to the customer care centre of OP No.2 with a copy to OP No.1 on 14.02.2017 but to no effect and it is a clear cut deficiency of service and the OPs also indulged in unfair trade practice and as such the complainant is entitled to accept his complaint and direction be given to OPs to refund Rs.9099/- and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for defective service and so also for indulging in unfair trade practice and harassing the complainant and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly both the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written reply whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is without any cause of action against the OPs. It is submitted that the vehicle in question had a manufacturer warranty for 24 months or 40,000 kilometers, whichever is earlier. This warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as enumerated in owners manual and service booklet. It is also submitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 21.11.2012. The warranty period of the said vehicle concluded on 21.11.2014 by afflux of time, therefore, no obligation was left to be performed on the part of the OPs. Even otherwise, clutch is not covered under warranty as per clause 4(2) as enumerated in the Owners Manual and Service Booklet and further averred that the complainant has failed to set out any case for compensation. The complainant has failed to place any material on the record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against the OPs and further alleged that the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention just to get undue advantage from the Forum. On merits para No.1 is admitted and further submitted that the OP No.1 is the authorized service centre of the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 is the manufacturer of Maruti Swift Car and further alleged that the automobile is a mechanical device and need proper care and maintenance and even the complainant did not send the vehicle in question for timely services. The complainant got the service of the said vehicle on 10.02.2017 at 54,460 Kms and paid a sum of Rs.5,715/- and even the vehicle was sent to the workshop on 13.02.2017 and clutch fuel leakage was reported as demanded repair and accordingly after repairing the car, the OP charged Rs.9,009/- from the complainant for replacement of clutch plates, rings and labour etc alongwith Rs.90/- as the payment was made through Debit Card as service charges and further alleged that at the time of service of the car, internal parts cannot be checked and the clutch plates are fixed in the engine of the vehicle. At the time of changing of clutch plates, the engine is to be opened and as such the OPs are not at fault for damaging the clutch parts and plates of the vehicle rather it is due to the negligence on the part of the complainant but the other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith document Ex.OP/1 and closed the evidence

7. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. In this complaint, the ownership of the Maruti Swift Car of the complainant as well as getting a service on 10.02.2017 and making a payment of Rs.5715/- of the car of the complainant is not denied rather it is also admitted by the OPs in its reply that the Clutch Plates of the Maruti Swift Car was replaced on 13.02.2017, due to the reason the clutch oil leakage was reported and demanded repair and also alleged that the car is not in a warranty period and as such the complainant has to pay the charges whatsoever and so for the negligence on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant is virtually wrong because the OP whenever provide a service of the vehicle, they never check the internal part of the vehicle like Clutch Plates and as such there is no negligence on the part of the OPs and further alleged that a sum of Rs.90/- has been charged over and above the actual bill of Rs.9009/- being the payment was made by the complainant through Debit Card and said Rs.90/- as service charge.

9. We have considered the entire submission of both the party and find that the complainant admittedly got service of the vehicle on 10.02.2017 at the mileage of 54460 and paid Rs.5715/- and vehicle was handed over to the complainant with the submission that the next service is due after 5000 Kms. So, it means that when vehicle was handed over to the complainant, it is presumed to be a road worthy and there is no fault in the car. Moreover, as per cardinal principle of law, whenever any vehicle brings for service then a duty casted upon the OP i.e. Service Centre to check the car from all angles, the purpose for bringing the car in a authorized service centre is only to get the vehicle check computerized, as per advance technique, the engine of the vehicle is to be checked through computerized system and every defect in the engine is to be find out through computerized system and moreover the oil of the engine, oil of the break, oil of the clutch plates is a basic necessity to check at the time of service of the vehicle by the mechanic of the service centre but in this case, blunder negligence has been committed by the mechanic of the OP No.1 by not checking the oil of the clutch plate and due to that reason, the clutch plate of the vehicle was got damaged. So, it is a clear cut negligence on the part of the OP No.1. Here is no question of warranty because the complainant is not claiming any damages on the basis of warranty period rather the complainant claiming compensation on the basis of negligence, committed by the mechanic of the OP No.1, which is apparently established from the facts as well as from the documents, Ex.C1 showing the ownership of the complainant and Ex.C2 itself established that the complainant got service of the vehicle on 10.02.2017 and paid a sum of Rs.5715/- and then vehicle was again brought to service centre of the OP No.1 on 13.02.2017, means after two days of the service of the vehicle for changing of clutch plates and accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.9009/- vide receipt Ex.C3, whereas the amount deducted from the bank account of the complainant is Rs.9099/- which was paid through Debit Card and receipt of the bank showing the payment is Ex.C4 then complainant gave a notice to OP No.2 for the negligence of the OP No.1, the said notice is Ex.C5 but no action was taken on this notice and copy of this notice was also sent to OP No.1 which is Ex.C6, further complainant has brought on the file a copy of notification issued by Reserve Bank of India, whereby the clarification has been given that making a payments for purchase of goods through Debit Card is not liable to pay any services charges. So, accordingly it is also established that the OP No.1 has get said charges of Rs.90/- over and above the bill amount. So, under these circumstances, it is clearly established that there is a negligence on the part of the official of OP No.1 and OP No.1 is a service centre of the Maruti Suzuki India Limited i.e. OP No.2 and as such both are vicariously liable for the fault of their employee and accordingly we reached to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.9099/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt i.e. 13.02.2017 till realization and further OP No.1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for mentally and physically harassment and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

05.07.2017 Member President