BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.400 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 25.09.2018

      Date of Decision:29.12.2020

Sunny Nischal aged about 36 years son of Sh. Shashi Paul resident of Raja Garden, Gali No.1, Near Water Tank, Basti Danishmanda, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam-Gurgaon Road,         Gurgaon-122015 through its Executive Vice President (Service)     Partho Banerjee.

2.       M/s Lovely Autos, head office Lovely Mall, Dr. Ambedkar      Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Chairman/owner/president.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Kuljit Singh             (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. H. S. Randhawa, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

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

Order

Kuljit Singh(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased one Boleno Delta 1.3 Car Colour Grey having chassis NO.486603, engine No.3318949 from the authorized representative of OP No.1 i.e. Lovely Autos, Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar City vide delivery memo dated 15.06.2018 duly signed by authorized signatory and paid vehicle costs amounting to Rs.7,22,263/- alongwith other incidental charges. The newly car was not upto mark and there was a noise from the engine and the same was handed over to the OP No.2 for inspection, however, they kept the vehicle with them in their workshop and told the complainant that there is some noise from some parts near the engine and clutch plates and pressure plates and they will care/remove the same and the vehicle will be all right and the same was delivered back to the complainant with an assurance that the defect has been cured, however again there was a noise from within the engine and when the complainant approached the OP No.2 and they opened the job card and suggested that service additional job may be required to be done as per the condition of the vehicle and work manager Mr.Chopra assured the complaint that they have served the vehicle as fly wheel comp., cover and clutch set, clutch cover assembly and clutch disk have been changed in the vehicle and there will be no noise from the vehicle and emersion of fuel will be corrected and they handed over the vehicle to the complainant with the assurance that the vehicle is OK. However, it proved to be a futile exercise and there is manufacturing defect in the engine itself and the complainant has not spent on the vehicle to drive a new vehicle like that. When again the complainant approached the OP No.2 that defect is not cured then they told the complainant that again another check up of the engine is to be done to remove the defect, however, the complainant says that he has not spent such a huge amount to drive a defective vehicle and there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle which cannot be cured. Copy of the Job Letter is Ex.C-4 and Delivery Memo is Ex.C-5. That the complainant approached the OP many times but they did not have any satisfactory reply to the complainant as such the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.7,22,263/- alongwith incidental charges of Rs.2,00,000 and Rs.50,000/- due to causing harassment, pain, agony, mental tension, suffering in loss of business or the complainant be given to new vehicle on account of negligence of the OP. That the complainant also served a legal notice dated 23.08.2018 upon the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to  pay Rs.7,22,263/- alongwith 9% interest, Rs.2,00,000/- as incidental charges, Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.11,000/- as a counsel fee and litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with an afterthought to obtain undue gains from the answering OPs. It is submitted that the complainant has raised alleged problem of noise from engine in his complaint. It is further submitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the OP No.2 on 19.06.2018 and noise from engine was reported as demanded repairs. The vehicle was inspected and the necessary repairs/replacements were carried out on free of cost basis under warranty. The vehicle in question has been sent three time after this visit, but the alleged problem of noise has not been reported. It clearly indicates that the complainant has been making purposeful use of the vehicle in question. Further the complainant has attached the job card dated 11.07.2018, but the complainant has not reported alleged problem of noise from engine on this visit. It indicates the malafide nature of the complainant to obtain undue again from the OP. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is further submitted that the complaint is without any cause of action against the answering OPs. It is submitted that the obligation of OPs under the warranty is which is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific at set out in the warranty as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. The OPs are only responsible for providing warranty service during the warranty period of 2 years or 40000 kms from the date of sale. The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitation as set out in owner’s manual and service booklet. On merits, the purchasing of the vehicle is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.  

3.                In order to prove their respective versions, counsel for both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence alongwith documents.

4.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the case file, very minutely.

5.                The case of the complainant is only that the complainant has purchased one Boleno Delta 1.3 Car amounting to Rs.7,22,263/- alongwith other incidental charges, from the authorized representative of OP No.1 i.e. Lovely Autos, copy of the Invoice is Ex.C-1, Copy of Provisional Registration Certificate of Vehicle is Ex.C-2, Copy of insurance policy cover is Ex.C-3. There was a noise from the engine and the same was handed over to the OP No.2 for inspection and after cured the defect, car was handed over to the complainant. Then again same problem has been come and the complainant again approached to the OP No.2, where work manager Mr.Chopra assured the complainant that they have served the vehicle as fly wheel comp., cover and clutch set, clutch cover assembly and clutch disk have been changed in the vehicle and there will be no noise from the vehicle and emersion of fuel will be corrected and they handed over the vehicle to the complainant with the assurance that the vehicle is OK, but after some time problems have been again occurred, Copy of the Job Letter is Ex.C-4 and Delivery Memo is Ex.C-5, Copy of Notice is Ex.C-6 and Postal receipt is Ex.C-7.

6.                On the other hand, the OP itself admitted that the noise problem in the engine and necessary repair were carried out on free of cost basis under warranty. The vehicle in question has been sent three times after first visit. In his evidence, OP produced on the file Job Card Retail Tax Invoices Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4.

7.                After considering the overall facts and circumstances, one thing is clear that the OP admitted the vehicle has some problems and the vehicle is under the warranty period. So, complainant is entitled for the relief and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs be directed to repair the car and OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.  

8.                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                                       Jyotsna                           Kuljit Singh

29.12.2020                              Member                          President