DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 186/2011
SHRI LALIT KUMAR,
S/O SHRI AZAD SINGH
R/O F-14, LADO SARAI,
NEW DELHI 110017.
….Complainant
Versus
- M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.
HEAD OFFICE:-
NELSON MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070
- AAA VEHICLDES PVT. LTD. (AUTHORIZED DEALERS FOR MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. ) THROUGH ITS
GENERAL MANAGER.
SHOWROOM OF MARUTI SUZUKI
F-1/198, SAVITRI NAGAR, MALVIYA NAGAR ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110017.
- AAA VEHICLEDES PVT. LTD. (AUTHORIZED DEALERS OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.)
WORKSHOP OF MARUTI SUZUKI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
B-244, O.I. AREA, PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI-110020.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 27.05.2011 Date of Order : 10.11.017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
In brief, the facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a car make Alto in the month of June, 2010 on down payment of Rs.1,37,599/- along with finance of Rs. 1,70,000/- from OP No.2. On 19.08.2010 “when there was a excessive rainfall in the capital while driving complainant found there was lot of water in the car as such he fetched the water out of the said car through Mug and Glass. That after two days there was so much of smell in the car due to water logging inside the car.” On 20.08.2010, he visited OP-2 from where he had purchased the car but nobody from OP-2 was ready to entertain the complaint of the complainant being a Sunday. After some days, the complainant again talked to the representatives of OP-2 through telephone and they confirmed that in such rainy session water logging in the car is no big deal and it is very natural. Reply was not satisfactory. Complainant personally visited OP-3 and OP-3 informed him that during rainy session it is very much possible that the water would get into the car. On 22.08.2010, vide job card No. 10005764, complainant approached the customer care manager and they confirmed that water should not go in a new car at least. OP-3’s officers inspected the said car and found that there was water inside the vehicle through rear back door due to some weeding problem and as such the representatives of OP-3 gave resolution that they would get the matt dry cleaned and weeding changed of the rear back door and suggested him to took of the matt from the car and informed him that “we do not have back door weeding in our stock” and “Rear RH door Gola Rubber N.A. in the store”. On 26.08.2010, complainant sent complaint through email to OP-1 but to no effect. Due to above said problem, the said vehicle was junked due to which said vehicle was damaged. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to OPs on 25.02.2011 but OPs did not reply. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following directions: -
“a) direct the opposite parties to immediately took back their defected car which has no water resistance quality and replace it
- direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) to the complainant for the mental agony, mental harassment and huge monetary loss caused to the complainant by the opposite parties.
- direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of litigation.”
OP-1 in its written statement has inter-alia stated that OP-1 is neither a necessary nor a proforma party to the complaint. Complainant had failed to disclose any specific cause of action. The complainant had plied the vehicle very extensively for more than 32645 kms as on 20.08.2011. It is submitted that all the vehicles manufactured by the OP are duly approved by appropriate authority by Government of India. The vehicle in question has also undergone all the checks. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 & OP-3 in their written statement have inter-alia stated as follows:-
“That the relief claimed by the complainant is highly improbable and impossible. The complainant as such has not stated the true facts and has tried to mislead this Hon’ble Forum taking the Ld. Forum for a joy ride and to harass the respondents who are determined to provide best of their services and further more the complainant has not specifically stated the defect in the car and nor offered the car for repairs if required. The job card are silent on the aspect of the defects. The job cards express customer/ complainant’s satisfaction when he got delivery of the car after its service. The complainant has not correctly stated his problem in the car. The same could not be rectified and the complainant approached this Ld. Forum with most unclean hands. The complainant deserves to be dismissed.”
It is stated that it is clear that the complainant himself has been negligent in handling the vehicle and as such he is not at all entitled to any compensation as claimed. OP No.2 & OP-3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinders to the written statements of OPs. In the replication to written statement of OP-1 the complainant has not denied that the complainant has plied the vehicle more than 32645 kms as on 20.08.2011.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Thakur Kiran Singh, Manager (Law) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP-1 and affidavit of Sh. Y.S. Katoch, CEO has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP-2 & 3.
Complainant has not marked exhibit Nos. on the documents as per the exhibits Nos. given to them in the affidavit.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the Maruti Suzuki Alto car from OP-2 on 11.06.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,96,000/-.
There is no evidence on the record which may prove that on 22.08.2010 or on any other date, employees of the customer care manager of OP-3 had confirmed to him that water should not go in a new car at least. According to the complainant himself, there was an excessive rain fall in the capital on 19.08.2010 due to which water had got into his car. The water could get into the car for various reasons. Copy of job card dated 22.08.2010 bearing No. 10005764 though exhibited as exhibit CW-1/3 has not been filed on the record from which it could be confirmed whether the officials of OP-3 had infact written on it that they had found that there was water inside the vehicle in question through rear back door due to some weeding problem or that they did not have back door weeding in their store. As stated hereinabove, the complainant has not disputed that the vehicle had already plied 32645 kms as on 20.08.11. There is absolutely no evidence on the record to show that due to water logging in the car, the body of the car had junked and had damaged. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
On 20.04.2017, the complainant stated that the vehicle in question has already run 1,10,000 kms so far.
The judgment cited on behalf of the complaint and reported as Terex Vectra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meharchand IV (2012) CPJ 87 does not apply to the fact of the present case.
Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 10.11.2017.
