Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/111/2017

Anshul Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ravi Kumar

02 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/111/2017
Date of Institution	:	06/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	02/04/2018

 

Anshul Bhardwaj s/o Ashok Bhardwaj, House No.2175, First Floor, Sector 68, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Maruti Suzuki Industry Limited (MSIL), Regional Office, S.C.O. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager, Sh. Vikas Saini.

2.     Care Taker, Maruti Authorised Dealer Workshop, Plot No.35 and 36, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula through its Works Manager Sh. Raj Kumar. 

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                             

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Rohit Kaushik, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. SukaamGupta, Counsel for OP-2

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations in brief are, the complainant had purchased a Maruti Wagon R car from M/s Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs.3,76,791/- on 24.10.2015.  While the complainant was on his way from Panchkula to Mohali on 1.10.2016, the vehicle came to a grinding halt, suddenly stopped and seemed to have developed a serious problem as it got completely jammed. Maruti helpline was contacted upon which executive of OP-2 came and inspected the vehicle, but, could not identify the exact problem and suggested to take the vehicle to the workshop of OP-2. The vehicle was immediately taken to OP-2 and from the email dated 6.10.2016, the complainant came to know that the problem had arisen due to entry of water in the engine resulting in its seizure and thus they refused to undertake the job/replace the engine as the same was not covered under warranty. The complainant showed his dissatisfaction vide email dated 7.10.2016. The matter was also vigorously followed, but, the claim of the complainant was ignored.  When the problem was not attended to, the complainant got the vehicle repaired himself and incurred a sum of Rs.46,405/-. On these averments, the complainant prayed for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.46,000/- being the cost of repairs, Rs.75,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint. OP-1 filed its reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of complainant being not a consumer as no consideration was paid to OP-1; complaint is false and frivolous; without any cause of action; is an afterthought.  OP-1 was neither privy nor received consideration for the same. It is the case, examination of the vehicle revealed hydrostatic lock causing the damage to the engine which was not covered under warranty. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 also furnished reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of complaint being not maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and there was no defect or deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.  It is also the case, complainant was apprised, the said problem was not covered under warranty and he had to pay for the job desired to be done which the complainant agreed and accordingly repairs were carried over the vehicle in question and the same was delivered to the complainant on 31.12.2016
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and counter affidavits. 
5.         We have heard the learned counsels for OPs and gone through the record of the case. Per material on record, we arrive at the following conclusions :-
6.         Per allegations made in the complaint, it is not the case that the engine seizure due to entry of water was covered under the warranty.  This means, in case there was entry of water in the engine resulting in its seizure, the same was not covered under warranty and the complainant had to pay for the same.  It is the case of the complainant in the rejoinder filed that if it was so, then it tantamounts to within the definition of accident and the same amount could have been claimed from the insurer.  It is for the complainant to take such like decision and to submit the claim to the insurer.  Rather a complaint has been preferred against the service provider for a defect which was not covered under warranty.
7.         A meticulous perusal of the allegations made in the consumer complaint shows on 6.10.2016, the complainant was informed that problem had arisen due to entry of water in the engine resulting in its seizure.  We have taken note of letter dated 31.12.2016 which is a satisfaction note.  Its perusal shows, the work which was carried was to the satisfaction of the complainant who is also a signatory to it. He was satisfied with the repair/ service rendered. This shows, the problem had arisen prior to 31.12.2016 and some sort of repair was done to which the complainant was satisfied. Now, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say there was deficiency in service unless he was able to prove that it was a manufacturing defect.
8.         Per record, no material has been produced to show, it was a manufacturing defect so as to say covered under warranty for its replacement. The cause which has been highlighted was allegedly due to the negligence of the complainant as the vehicle was allegedly driven under water which has caused this problem.
9.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President