Delhi

North East

CC/155/2017

Arun Kumar Bheda - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 155/17

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Arun Kumar Bheda S/o Shri  Ram Kumar Singh R/o House No.399, Street No.03, Block-D, Nehru Vihar, P.O- Gokul Puri.	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Through its Directors 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kung, New Delhi-110070   M/s Fairdeal Cars Pvt. Ltd. Authorised Dealer: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 485-A, Main G.T Road, Jhilmil Shahdara, Delhi-110096	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

04.05.17 04.11.22 24.02.23

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

     Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a vehicle from Opposite Party No.2 having registration no. DL5CL1359 dated 11.06.15 vide a retail invoice bearing no. 15157. The Complainant submitted that after purchasing of the said vehicle the vehicle started to show various problems like low pick up, excessive vibration in neutral position after a drive, jerking, stopping at the time of ignition, automatic switching from CNG to petrol & engine starts after several attempt of ignition etc. The Complainant made complaint to Opposite Party No.2 about the problems in vehicle and official of Opposite Party No.2 told him that after driving the vehicle for some kilometres the problems will resolved but the problem still subsists. On 20.06.15 the Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 and the officials of Opposite Party No.2 have not repaired the defects and serviced the vehicle and gave assurance that the problems was resolved but even after use the vehicle for several days it still showed problems. On 21.08.15 the Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 found low pick up and ignition problem and Opposite Party No.2 made a jobsheet and issued a bill and assured the Complainant that the problems was resolved but the defects were not resolved. The Complainant submitted that on 09.09.15 and on 30.09.15 he again visited Opposite Party No.2 with the same complaint of defects in his vehicle. The Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 on 03.12.15 complaint about the defects in his vehicle. On 17.12.15 and 01.01.16 he visited Opposite Party No.2 with the same complaint of defects in vehicle and the Opposite Party No.2 put his vehicle under observation but problem in vehicle was not resolved. The Complainant sent a complaint through email to chairman of Maruti Suzuki India ltd. against Opposite Party but no response was received. The Complainant again sent emails on 21.01.16, 23.01.16, 29.01.16 and 03.02.16, 11.03,16 to several employees of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 but no response was received. The Complainant stated that on 15.05.16, 20.05.16, 27.05.16, 15.07.16 and 26.07.16 he again presented his vehicle to Opposite Party No.2 to resolve the problem in his vehicle but the problems were not resolved. The Complainant submitted that he had sent a legal notice to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 dated 10.02.16 but no response was given by Opposite Parties. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to replace the vehicle in question with a new having same model and price. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the complaint filed by the Complainant is false and without any cause of action against the Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged that the Complainant is not a consumer. It is alleged that the complaint is without any merit and the complaint has no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 also contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.2 has denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is the case of Opposite Party No.2 that Complainant has concealed the material facts and has mis-represented the facts before this Commission. It is the case of Opposite Party No.2 that the Complainant has approached it for doing the routine service of the car which was done satisfactorily. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. The Complainant has also filed his additional affidavit.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

4. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Mukesh Pandey, Territory Service Manager for Opposite Party No.1, Office:-Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110070 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Shri Ashok Pradhan, AR for Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.  The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a car on 11.06.15 from Opposite Party No.2. it is his case that from the very beginning there were so many problems in the said car such as low pick up, excessive vibration in neutral position after a drive, jerking, stopping at the time of ignition, automatic switching from CNG to petrol & engine starts after several attempt of ignition etc. The case of the Complainant is that the said problems could not be resolved by the Opposite Party No.2 despite his several visits to the Opposite Party No.2 and as such it is clear that there is some manufacturing defect in the car. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that there is no defect or problem in the car. Its case is that the Complainant is approached it only for routine servicing of the car and every time service was done to the complete satisfaction of the Complainant. Now, the question is that whether there is any inherent or any manufacturing defect in the car. The Complainant has not filed any document or report of any expert to show that the car has any manufacturing defect. The Complainant has filed a copy of the jobcard retail invoice dated 15.05.16. The said jobcard show that on the said date the car of the Complainant has done 28,691 kms. The perusal of the said jobcard retail invoice shows that the Complainant has not mentioned about any such complaint which he is alleging in this complaint. Its perusal further shows that the Complainant was satisfied with the repair work of the Opposite Party No. 2. In the said jobcard retail invoice dated 15.05.16 it mentioned as under “Jobs done & cost of repairs/service carried out in my car were explained to me and I am receiving the vehicle post completion of repairs/service to my satisfaction”. The said remarks bear the signature of the Complainant. This all shows that on 15.05.16 the Complainant was completely satisfied with the service/repair of the car and he has not grievance regarding the functioning of the car.
6. In view of the discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed.
7. Order announced on 24.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President