DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No. 103/18
Sh. Gian Sagar Wadhwa
Commandant BSF (Retd.)
JA-6, SF Gupta Colony
Khirki Extension,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
….Complainant
Versus
- M/S Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Through Its Managing Director
Head Office:-1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070
- M/S AAA Vehicleades Pvt Ltd & Ors
Through its Managing Director,
MRS. Gunjan Rana
F-1/189, Savitri Nagar,
Panchsheel – Malviya Nagar Road,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 03.04.2018
Date of Order : 18.07.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
1. Complainant has prayed for passing an award directing the M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and M/s AAA Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1 & OP-2 respectively) (i) to replace the defective vehicle with similar new vehicle; (ii) the chassis plate in respect of old vehicles received by OP-2 as scrap be returned; (iii) the OPs jointly and severally be directed to compensate the Complainant by a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- towards harassing senior citizen; (iv) the OP be directed to make good for undue litigation etc.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant, senior citizen aged about 74 years, purchased car make Maruti Alto- 800 LXI bearing Registration No. DL3CCE 2241 for personal use vide Invoice No. VSL15002768 dated 31.03.2016. However, the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 14.04.2016. Copy of the invoice is annexed as Annexure C-1. When delivery was passed on 14.04.20016, the vehicle was driven by the driver of OP-2 to the residence of Complainant. When the Complainant drove the said vehicle to drop the driver back to the showroom, the steering wheel was experienced tough and hard and steering wheel was giving the feel of heavy truck. The Complainant met many representatives of OP-2 but of no avail. Ultimately the Complainant e-mailed to Sh. Pankaj Narula – Executive Director of OP-1 on 19.04.2016 and 22.04.2016 as well as to OP-2. The OP-2 replied to in response to the letter 19.04.2016 stating that “Reference your query dated 19.04.2016 regarding technical issue. We are working on it and will keep you posted on the development of the same”. Another e-mail dated 26.04.2010 was received which states “Wish to inform your vehicle condition good & in working position at time of delivery. PDI job card is attached for your reference.” The same is annexed at Annexure C-4 & C-5. It is also alleged that PDI Card was not provided to the Complainant at the time of delivery. The Complainant further alleged that the said vehicle was a refurbished one. Hence, the complaint.
3. OP-1, on the other hand, submitted its reply interalia raising preliminary submissions. It was alleged that the complaint is time barred as vehicle was bought on 31.03.2016. The problem was occurred and reported around 01.05.2016. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of Maruti, Sale and Service, Naraina on 01.05.2016. No abnormality was observed and vehicle was in perfect OK and roadworthy condition. Again vehicle was sent on 28.10.2017. It was contended that no deficiency as required under section 2(1)(g) Consumer Protection Act was reported. It was also stated that the Complainant had entered into an independent transaction with OP-2. OP-1 sells its products to its authorised dealers and relationship between the OP-1 & OP-2 is that of “Principal - to - Principal basis”. The OP-1 is not privy to the incident related to transaction of sale of the vehicle in question with OP-2. The OP-1 also raised objection on the alleged defects in steering wheel after driving the vehicle on the same date of delivery i.e 14.04.2016, as to why it was not reported immediately. The vehicle was sent to authorised workshop on 01.05.2016. Under the Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet, periodic maintenance is necessary. Three free Inspection Service & Maintenance are provided 1st – service schedule mandates 1,000 KMs or one month and 3rd Service is required after 10,000 Kms. or one year. OP-2 maintains that vehicle was not sent as per schedule mentioned above to the authroised Service Station as such, violate Clause 4(9). The said clause states “This Warranty shall not apply to any vehicle which has not received, during the warranty term.” However, the vehicle was sent on 01.05.2016. The OP-1 objected on the allegation of fabrication of PDI job card. When vehicle was taken on 01.05.2016 at 76 Kms. The vehicle was inspected and after taking road test with the Complainant, no abnormality was observed with regard to steering wheel. It may be stated that vehicle was sent for 1st visit (inspection) on 28.10.2017 after 18 months and yet no problem of steering wheel was reported.
4. OP-2 gave its reply in response to said complaint as well. It too took preliminary objection/submissions. It is also stated that the Complainant availed the Exchange OFFER and availed the discount of Rs.57,000/-. The said vehicle had undergone the mandatory PDI Inspection. The emails dated 19.04.2016, 25.04.2016, 05.07.2017 and 07.07.2017 are already a part of record. With regard to e-mail dated 25.04.2016, the OP thoroughly checked the record with respect to said vehicle and PDI. It was found that the said vehicle does not suffer from any defect and accordingly reply alongwith PDI was sent to the Complainant.
5. All the parties filed Written Arguments as well as evidence in affidavit. Written Statements are on record so is the rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
6. This Commission has gone into entire gamut of issues placed before us. As per PDI report, the vehicle had been declared O.K condition. OPs have not mentioned about the skill level of the technical engineers who conducted the PDI and whether the technical engineers of the OP-1 were associated during this drill. As regards to return of chassis plate, it has been seen that the vehicle in question was brought under the Exchange Offer and the Complainant got the discount of Rs.57,000/- which can be seen from the invoice itself. The old vehicle, as maintained by OP-2, goes for scrap. Hence, the demand of the Complainant for return of chassis plate does not appeal to us. The Complainant has also alleged that he was given “Refurbished” Vehicle instead of new one. This allegation is not supported by the level of evidence which is required.
7. This Commission feels that there could be some problem with respect to steering wheel. The Complainant has reported in the first fortnight itself about the hardness of the steering wheel. The Complainant has submitted the copy of Job Card when the vehicle was taken to OP-1’s authorised Service Centre at Naraina on 01.05.2016 (at annexed at C-6), reveals that “Steering hard - Return not OK.” The return no OK is written by hand. Whereas the OP-1 & OP-2 both categorically denied any technical defect in steering wheel. Both have stated that when vehicle was inspected at Service Centre at Naraina, no defect was reported and Road-test alongwith the Complainant was also conducted. Nothing was found during the test.
8. As regards to complaint being time-barred, it is noticed that the Complainant took the delivery on 14.04.2016 and he wrote email on 19.04.2016 & 25.04.2016 about the technical issue. The said vehicle was taken on 01.05.2016 at Service Station of OP-1 at Naraina. The complaint was filed on 03.04.2018. The same is well within limit of prescribed period of two years. Hence, the objection of the OP-1 is not found sustainable.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission feels that OPs have proved their case by adducing the substantive evidences. These have been discussed in detail in above paras. There may be some hardness in Steering wheel but same could not be proved by any shred of evidence. It is also true that said vehicle was not reported for mandatory check as per schedule. However, the OP-2 has negated the report of Service Centre with respect to Steering wheel. He maintained that if there had been any defect in Steering wheel, it could have been rectified then & there. Hence there was no defect at all.
10. In nutshell, this Commission feels that the case could not be proved beyond doubt by the Complainant. Hence, the Complaint fails and the request is rejected.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
