BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.260 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 18.06.2018

      Date of Decision: 05.08.2022

Sanjeev Chopra S/o Shri Subhash Chopra R/o 13-A, Dilbagh Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd., Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Gurugram,         Haryana through its Chairman/Managing       Director/Directors/Principal Officer.

2.       M/s Nexa Lovely Autos, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar Punjab   through its Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Atul Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

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

Order

Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OPs are engaged in manufacturing and sale of Maruti and Maruti Suzuki make cars to the general public for consideration throughout India particularly at Jalandhar. On the allurements, assurances and promise of OPs that OPs have a name in the market for selling quality goods and that goods sold by the OPs are made of high quality material and craftsmanship and are guaranteed against any type of defect, complainant agreed to purchase a car for personal use. The complainant on 19.6.2017 visited OP No.2 for booking of Maruti Suzuki Baleno Car. But the sales executive of OPs prevailed on Complainant to buy a S Cross car in place of Baleno. Further the said Sales Executive prevailed upon Complainant stating that there many offers and discounts on S cross car, which were not available on Baleno Car. Moreover, the said Sales Executive prevailed on Complainant that if Complainant agree to buy S-Cross car, then OPs can give delivery of S-Cross car on the same day, otherwise there is waiting period of up to three months. The Complainant came into influence of OPs and agreed to buy an S-Cross Car. Complainant completed all of the formalities and exchanged his old Maruti Swift car and made payment of entire balance amount to OPs. The S-Cross car was delivered to Complainant late at night at about 8:30 PM. It is important to mention here that on 19.6.2017 there was very huge storm and heavy winds and rain was there. Complainant did not check all of the said S-Cross car properly from all sides particularly from the roof of the said car presuming and relying on OPs that is a new car. Moreover as stated early it was raining heavily and there was huge storm and it was dark also. On 20-6-2017, in the morning when Complainant was cleaning the said Car, Complainant noticed some 4-5 paint patches on the roof of the said S cross car of Complainant. Complainant was taken aback and immediately Complainant approached OP No.2 and informed them about the said defect. The employees of OP No.2 assured Complainant that they shall get the problem resolved and called Complainant after two three days. Complainant handed over the said car to employees of OP No.2. But when Complainant was returned the said car the said patches were still present on the said car. Thereafter again Complainant approached OP No.2 and employees of OP No.2 again assured Complainant that this time problem of Complainant shall be resolved but to no use. The employees of OP No.2 assured Complainant that they have forwarded the matter to the company and OP No.1 shall resolve the problem of Complainant. Thereafter again Complainant was called by OP No.2 and car of Complainant was got checked from an expert, who clicked photographs of said car and assured Complainant that the matter shall be taken up with higher authorities and shall be resolved but there after no one has approached Complainant to remove said defects in the said car of Complainant. Thereafter, complainant requested OPs many times for removing the defects or for chaning the said car or for refunding the amount of said car and for compensation for mental tension, harassment, inconveniences etc. 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 either to replace the said car with new one or to refund the price of the said car to complainant alongwith interest @ 18%  per annum from 19.06.2017 till its realization and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with an ulterior motive to obtain undue gains from the OPs. It is further averred that the OPs being the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles stands warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000 Kms, whichever even occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. It is submitted that as per clause 3 of warranty policy, the "opposite party No.1's obligation as manufacturer is specific to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by this warranty." The terms and conditions of warranty are integral part of sale contract and the complainant and opposite parties are bound by them. It is submitted that the vehicle in question has always been attended as per terms and conditions of warranty. The complainant had been making demands and taking the shelter of this Commission and trying to put undue pressure on the OPs. The complainant has availed all the warranty benefits. It is further averred that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint without any material on record against the OPs. The complainant has failed to set put any case for defect as per Section 2(1) (f) of unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1) (r ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs. It is further averred that the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive to make undue gains from the OPs. The complainant was requested by the OP No.2 vide email dated 12.08.2017 to bring vehicle to the workshop to address his concerns regarding paint. But the vehicle was sent on 11.09.2017 for body repair work but again the alleged problem of paint patches was not reported. It is further averred that the present complaint is without any cause of action against the OPs. The allegation of the OPs under the warranty is which is part and parcel of the sale contract, is specific as set out in the warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the car by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the OP No.2 on 12.07.2017 for the very first fee inspection service, 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.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and then closed the evidence.

5.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.OP1&2/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                The complainant purchased the S cross car from the OPs on 19.06.2017, vide Ex.C-7 for Rs.9,08,113/- and the complainant paid Rs.7,80,911/- on 19.06.2017 and balance was yet to be paid as per Ex.C-7. The RC has been proved as Ex.C-6. The allegations of the complainant are that on 19.06.2017, the S cross car was delivered to him at night at about 08:30 PM and on that day, there was very huge storm and heavy winds and rain was there and due to this fact he could not check all of the said S cross car properly from all the sides. On 20.06.2017, when he was cleaning the car, he noticed that some 4-5 paint patches are there on the roof of the said S cross car and he informed the OP immediately and lodged complaints also, but his issue was never resolved. Ex.C-8 is the extended warranty and the warranty was valid upto 18 June, 2021 or upto 80,000 kms. He made number of complaints, which have been proved as Ex.C-4, Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-5, which are of 12.07.2017, 27.07.2017 and 22.08.2017. These complaints show that he made representations to the OPs number of times, but his issue was not resolved. He has filed on record the photographs also, which have been proved as Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12. All these photographs show the patches on the roof of the car, which cannot be presumed to be there in a new car. The OPs have proved on record the job cards showing the first free service as Ex.OP-1, second free service Ex.OP-2 and the inspection report of the car Ex.OP-3 and the correspondence with the complainant through email Ex.OP-4 and vehicle history Ex.OP-5.

8.                The counsel for the OP has submitted that during the service of the car, the body of the car was checked and no defect was found there nor any defect was pointed out by the complainant. The complainant was asked to produce the car before the OP No.2 for redressal of his grievances, but the car was never produced. His contention is that the complainant has not proved on record that there is any manufacturing defect in the car as no expert opinion has been proved by the complainant rather the OPs have proved on record the expert opinion which clearly shows that there was no defect as alleged by the complainant. But the document Ex.OP4 i.e. email sent by OP to the complainant show that the complainant was asked to bring the car at his Dealership on any working day so that rectification regarding paint issue may be done. There is no expert opinion to prove that there was any manufacturing defect. From this document, it is clear that there was issue regarding paint. The complainant has been using the car since its purchase i.e. from 19.06.2017. Thus, the complainant is entitled for resolution of his complaint regarding paint issue.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to resolve the issue of paint by way of repair of the car of the complainant free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days 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.

10.              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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

05.08.2022         Member                          Member           President