Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/458/2023

HARSH GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

GURCHARAN SINGH KAUSHAL

22 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/458/2023
Date of Institution	:	20/9/2023
Date of Decision	:	22/11/2024

 

Harsh Goyal s/o Sh. Sanjay Goyal r/o H.No. 610/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh-160036

Versus

 

1. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited through its Director/Managing Director, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070.

2. M/s Tricity Autos (Maruti Suzuki Authorised Dealer) through its Proprietor/Partner/Director, C/o Maruti Suzuki Arena, Zirakpur-Patiala Highway, Near Nabha Sahib Gurudwara, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali)-140601.

 

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gurcharan Singh Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant.
	:	Sh. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the Complainant is owner of Ertiga ZXI CNG Model and the Complainant approached to OP No. 2 being Maruti Suzuki Authorized Dealer on 28.06.2023 for routine service of said vehicle and after service the OP No. 2 have issued dated 28.06.2023 for RS. 5,522.69/- which was paid by the Complainant. After the said service on 07.07.2023 the Complainant visited Faridabad, Haryana on the said vehicle due to his personal work and he realized that some noise is coming from front Tyres and the breaks of the vehicle is also not working properly and when he reached Ballabgarh, the said noise increased and he immediately visited a Mechanic namely Lal Chand of Shop No. 20, Chungi No. 5, Ballabgarh to checking up the said noise. When the said Mechanic opened the front tyres to the utter shock of the Complainant, he found that at the time of said routine service of the said Vehicle on 28.06.2023 the Mechanic of the OP
No.2 did not bolted the Caliper of the disc brake system and for said reason there is noise and also for the said reason the breaks were not working properly, which is a great deficiency in services amounting to harassment, mental agony and danger to the life of the driver and other co-passengers of the said Vehicle as without brakes anything could have happen to the Vehicle. Thereafter, Complainant many times informed about the said incident to the OPs but to no avail. Ultimately the complainant issued legal notice Annexure C-6 but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of OP no.2 on 28.06.2023 at 21737 kms for periodic maintenance service and the concern related to noise from tyre or brakes not working properly was not reported by the complainant. It is averred that proper service was carried out and necessary parts were fixed properly as per terms and conditions of warranty. Even post service, the vehicle was test driven and no abnormality of any kind was observed in the vehicle. It is averred that the complainant has made allegations that he observed noise from tyre and brake concern on 07.07.2023. However, the concern was not reported to any nearby authorized workshop of the answering OP on 07.07.2023. It has further been alleged that the vehicle was taken to a local workshop i.e. 'Lal Chand, Ballabgarh' which is clear violation of the warranty as per Clause 4(k) which clearly states that 'This warranty shall not apply to any vehicle which has been assembled, disassembled, adjusted or repaired by other than a Maruti Suzuki authorized workshop. Therefore, the complainant was negligent in handling of the vehicle. It is stated that post the visit on 28.06.2023, the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of Op no.2 for periodic maintenance service on 01.11.2023 at 29961 kms i.e. after plying the vehicle for another 8224 kms. It is pertinent to note that during this visit, any concern related to noise from tyre or brake concern was not reported by the complainant. Had there been any defect, the same would have been reported during this visit. The vehicle was properly serviced and delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in its reply  stated that on 28.6.2023  the in question was picked up from the residence of complainant  for service and no specific complaint of brakes was asked to be attended at the time of handing over the vehicle by the complainant. As part of the paid service, the brake calipers of the car were greased, the brake fluid was changed and bolts of brake calipers were affixed and tightened by the mechanic of OP no.2 namely Sh. Gurvinder Singh under the supervision of Sh. ParshottamLal, Works Manager of OP no.2. After that the car was also taken road test which is done in routine after any paid service is done. Copy of register maintained for Road Test Track sheet showing conducting of road test of the car of the complainant on 28.06.2023 noted at a reading of 21737 Kms at time 05.48 PM to a reading of 21739 Kms at time 5.55 PM is annexed as ANNEXURE OP2/3. The copy of register of Gate Entry dated 28.06.2023 showing going out and coming back of the car of the complainant for road test at noted time 17.51 (05.51 PM) to 17.54 (05.54PM) is annexed as Annexure OP-2/4. The entire service of the car including affixing and tightening of bolts of lakecalipers was done properly to the satisfaction of dealing mechanic of answering OP No.2 namely Sh. Gurvinder Singh. In case the caliper bolting would not have done properly, the same would have been found out in the Road Test itself and the brakes would not have been working, whereas it is the own averment of the complainant that that the car has been used for seven days and has driven more than 300 kms on the day of alleged incident, which is just not possible with a loose caliper bolt. The car was also dropped to the house of complainant by the driver of OP no.2 namely Sh. Gurdeep Singh, who is expert and experienced in driving and well versed with car's components and entire machinery. Had he found any fault or problem with the brakes of the car or any noise on account of loosening of brake calipers, the same would have been highlighted by the driver to the workshop and would have been brought back to the workshop. Thus denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. Through the present complaint the complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for  not providing proper service  by OPs.  As per case of the complainant he got routine service of his car from OP No.2 on 28.6.2023  but the mechanic of the OP No.2 did not bolt the Caliper of the disc brake system  due to which there was noise  in the car and the break were not working properly. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the OPs.
8. A perusal of Annexure C-3(colly) reveals that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.5,522.69 to OP No.2  on 28.6.2024 and Annexure C-4 is the receipt issued by the Toll plaza which proves that the complainant has travelled from Chandigarh to Faridabad Haryana on 7.7.2023. Meaning thereby the complainant visited Fardidabad from Chandigarh after 9 days of the service of the vehicle from OP No.2.
9. After going through the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that if the complainant had an issue after getting the vehicle in question serviced from OP No.2 it was his foremost duty for the safety of his family and himself to report the matter to OPs immediately for thorough examination of the vehicle in question again before proceeding any long route journey that too after one week of repairs, which is not the case of the complainant. Even it is notable point that after service of the vehicle in question the complainant   has driven the same for 300 KM. Hence, it cannot be believed that the vehicle has covered such a long distance with defect in question.
10. As per allegations of the complainant  the service provided by the OPs  was faulty in nature, therefore due to negligent act of OP No.2 he was about to meet with some casualty of break fail which actually did not happen. To authenticate his allegation the complainant has placed on record one hand written letter issued by mechanic not authorized by the OPs, being not reliable.   Had the complainant placed on record report of any authorized mechanic of OPs at Faridabad the matter would have been different. But the handwritten report of some unknown mechanic cannot be relied upon. Hence, the complainant has utterly failed to  prove his case with some concrete evidence on record and as such the complaint of the complainant being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Pending application if any stands disposed off.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member