Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/214/2014

Anil Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	214 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	25.02.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	27.02.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Anil Kumar Verma son of Late Sh.Rajinder Nath, Verma, resident of H.No.737/B-2, Hanuman Mandir Street, Vishavkarma Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula 134102

 

             Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., through the Chairman & Managing Director, Palm Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122015 (Haryana)

 

2]  M/s. C.M.Autosales (P) Ltd., through The Chairman & Managing Director, Plot No.17, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160 002 (UT).

 

3]  Mr.Ashok Kumar, Dealer Sales Executive, M/s C.M. Autosales (P) Ltd., Plot No.17, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160 002 (UT)

 

 Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

        

 

Argued By:  Complainant in person.

None for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Amit Bhanot, Counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3.

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, he is aggrieved against the deficient act of the OPs, who sold him an accidental/old car under the guise of exchange offer.  It is averred that the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 for purchase of Wagon-R LXI Car under exchange offer. The complainant paid Rs.5000/- as booking amount and thereafter, Rs.3,25,000/- through demand draft for the purchase of the Car, whereupon one car was shown, but since from its tyres and scars on its front bumper, it appeared to be an old one, so the complainant refused to take it and demanded the refund of money paid.  However, the representative of Opposite Party No.1 told that they are arranging for another Wagon-R Silver Colour car.  After completing the papers and at about 7.00 PM, the Opposite Party No.1 told that the car is ready for delivery, but the complainant was surprised to see that car as it appears to be taken from Yard and there was dust on the seats and in the car. They advised the complainant that as and when he will come to them for replacing the bumper and change of door, they will get it completely washed and cleaned a new look.  The bumper of the car was changed on 16.8.2013 and about the thumb press on the door, it was told that it is not so visible.  It is stated that when the complainant took the car to Opposite Party No.1 for first service, they only washed the car from outside and did nothing.  There was so much dust inside the car and the mats were not cleaned.  This matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 as well as to Opposite Party No.2, whereupon Opposite Party No.1 agreed for removing the thumb press on the door and got singed some satisfaction papers from him, but inspite of all that it did not do the necessary changing in the door.  The Opposite Party No.1 instead told that they had not seen any dent over the door and I never complained for dent on the door.  Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 did not appear, but sent the reply through post stating therein that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from Opposite Party No.2, so the said sale agreement has taken place between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 only.  The Opposite Party No.1 has no privity of contract in the said sale agreement.  The complainant has not paid any amount to Opposite Party No.1 towards booking/price of vehicle in question.  The relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and its dealers is governed by the provisions of Dealership Agreement executed between them and is based on the principal-to-principal basis.  The Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the acts of omission or commission on the part of Opposite Party No.2.  The complainant has taken delivery of vehicle from Opposite Party No.2 without any protest and demur. All other allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.   

 

3]       The OPs No.2 & 3 filed joint reply and admitted the sale of vehicle.  It is stated that the complainant after thorough inspection of the vehicle, has taken its delivery. The complainant himself has given a satisfaction note to the answering OPs (Ann.R-1). In fact, the complainant visited the office of replying OPs after a couple of days from the date of delivery and starting blaming the staff for scratch on the bumper and as a good will gesture, the bumper were repaired.  There was no thumb press/dent on the door of the car as wrongly alleged by the complainant.  It is averred that the complainant made a complaint to Maruti Suzuki, which was followed by answering OPs and accordingly letters Ann.R-2, 3, 4 & 5 were sent to the complainant. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant, who had purchased a brand new Wagon-R LXI Car under exchange offer by paying an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- on 26.7.2013 from Opposite Party No.2, has preferred the present complaint on the ground that at the time of delivery of the vehicle in question, the same was delivered to him without properly cleaning and also that there was a dent mark on the front bumper as well as front right side door of the vehicle.  The complainant has also alleged that though he had reached the premises of Opposite Party No.2 on 26.7.2013 for taking the delivery of the vehicle well in advance, but he was unnecessarily made to wait till 7.00 in the evening when finally the car in question was delivered without completing the formal pre-delivery inspection.  Resultantly, the vehicle was neither clean and that it also had dents on front bumper as well as on the front right side door of the vehicle.  The complainant having raised this issue with the Opposite Parties, the front bumper of the vehicle was replaced.  However, the issue with regard to the dent on the front right side door of the vehicle remained unresolved. 

 

7]       The complainant has also raised the issue that at the time of first free service of the vehicle, he was offered free accessories to the tune of Rs.10,000/- by way of Seat Cover, Fog lamp and reverse sensor etc., which was accepted by him, but at the time of second free service, when he demanded the same, the promise was not honoured by the Opposite Parties.  Furthermore, the complainant has alleged that when the promise of free accessories was made to him, he was asked to give a satisfactory note, so that necessary formalities can be completed, but the Opposite Party No.2 backed from the promise, giving rise to the present dispute. The complainant has repeatedly written to Opposite Parties raising the issues, which was ultimately denied by them, compelling the complainant in issuing a legal notice to that effect.

 

8]       The Opposite Party No.1 preferred to file its written statement through post, which was received in the office of this Forum on 6^th June, 2014 and the same was taken on record. The Opposite Party No.2 & 3 have filed their detailed joint reply and have contested the claim of the complainant and denied any deficiency in service on their part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

9]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the considered view that the complainant having purchased the vehicle in question on 26.7.2013 and got his first free service done on 22.8.2013 as is evident from the copy of the job card Ann.29 Page 53.  The complainant on the given date had objected to the improper washing of the vehicle and also that the foot-mats were also dirty and not cleaned properly.  This issue was reported to the G.M. Sales, which is proved from the copy of Customer Lounge Feedback Form (Ann.32), dated 20.1.2014.  Another document with the title Instant Feedback Card Form (Ann.33) also shows that on 2^nd Free Service, the complainant had registered his opinion that on this occasion the service was better than the previous one.  This clearly indicates that at the time of handing over of the possession of the vehicle, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to satisfactorily complete the pre-delivery inspection and preferred to handover the vehicle in question without properly cleaning the same. Thus, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have acted in a deficient manner on this score.    

 

10]      The complainant, who had complained of the dent on the front bumper as well as front right door of the vehicle to the Opposite Parties, has admitted in his own complaint that the Opposite Party No.2 had replaced the bumper on 22.8.2013 whereas the matter pertaining to the front right door of the vehicle remained unresolved. This issue was well within the knowledge of the Opposite Parties and is also evident that they wanted to inspect the vehicle for this purpose alone as found mentioned in their letter dated 26.8.2013.  However, it is surprising that the vehicle which visited the premises of Opposite Party No.2 for second and third free service, the Opposite Party No.2 preferred to ignore this issue nor there is any mention on the copy of the job cards about the dent on the front right door of the car, as alleged by the complainant. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 during the proceedings of this case had even expressed their desire to inspect the vehicle for this purpose, but failed to make any connect with the complainant for such inspection. As the present complaint is duly supported by complainant’s sworn affidavit, therefore, the onus to prove that there was no dent on the right side door of the vehicle in question lay at the doors of the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties even after showing their desire to inspect the vehicle preferred not to visit the complainant’s premises at his convenience have left this issue unaddressed. It also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has been raising this issue through his communications placed on record, since the purchase of his vehicle. Therefore, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are found to have been offering mere lip service rather than addressing the issue conclusively.  Such, an act of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 amounts to deficiency in service.      

            

11]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 jointly & severally and dismiss qua Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 & 3 are jointly & severally directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- including litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% p.a. on the said amount, from the date of intuition of this complaint till it is paid. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

27^th February, 2015

                                            

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                                                     MEMBER

 

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.214 OF 2014
PRESENT:   None   Dated the 27th day of February, 2015
O R D E R                      Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately; the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party No.2 & 3 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)
Member	President