Date of filing:2.4.2013.
Date of disposal:17.12.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.
C.C.No.61 of 2013
Between:
V.Rama Krishna, S/o Gopala Swamy, Hindu, 53 years, R/o Madhura Nagar,Vijayawada, Krishna District.
.… Complainant.
AND
1. M/s Mithra Auto Agencies Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Branch Manager, Authorized Dealers for Maruthi Cars, Opp:All India Radio, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 10.
2. Maruthi Suzuki India Limited, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vansanth Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.
(Opposite party No.2 added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.189/2013 dated 5.12.2013).
.… Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 10.12.2014, in the presence of Sri E.S.Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri T.Bhairraju, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The sales promotional staff of the opposite party approached the complainant to induce to purchase Maruthi Omni Van (LPG Version) and explained its features and their services to the vehicle. Believing the same the complainant purchased the same from the opposite party on 31.1.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,44,018/-. But from the next day of its purchase the vehicle gave troubles. Immediately the complainant approached the Service Centre of the opposite party on 16.2.2012 and informed the same. The service personnel attended the repairs on several times but the vehicle gave trouble one after another. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite party and requested to replace the vehicle. The personnel of the opposite party assured that they will effect the repairs but in vain. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite party to replace the vehicle as the defect is within the warranty period. The opposite party without attending the grievance of the complainant tried to convince him. The 1st opposite party sold the defective vehicle having manufacturing defects and failed to replace the same in spite of several requests made by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to replace the Maruthi Omni Van purchased by the complainant on 31.1.2012 with a new vehicle as it is continuously giving troubles and breakdowns or in the alternative to pay the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.2,44,018/- and other insurance charges etc., along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle till date, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical strain sustained by the complainant and his family and to pay costs.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant himself approached the 1st opposite party to purchase the vehicle and the opposite party issued a warranty in accordance with the rules and regulations of the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchasing the vehicle the complainant was delivered the owners manual issued by the 2nd opposite party which contains the warranty limitations and free service coupons and also the suggestions and advises regarding periodical maintenance of the vehicle and also with regard to precautions to be taken while the vehicle is put into motion. On 16.2.2012 the complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre of the 1st opposite party and pointed out misfiring in engine during LPG mode and second gear hard and right side sliding door hardness. A job card was opened immediately and attended problems pointed out by the complainant. Usually when there is no proper usage release of clutch at the time of driving some times the gears appears to be hard depending upon the driving pattern of the driver. The driver has to adjust himself depending upon his height. The complainant is a short man and he was finding difficulty in releasing clutch which resulted into second gear appearing to be hard. Therefore the service people gave suitable suggestions and advised him in that regard. The complainant took the vehicle and he expressed his satisfaction. The complainant installed high frequency horns in the vehicle at an outside workshop. He also fitted a fan and also a CD player at an outside workshop, which are also against the warranty. High frequency horns, other than those provided by the manufacturer, are used, high voltage would emerge out and as consequence thereof there would be power fluctuations in the ignition system, which would affect the engine RPM. So also use of the fans in the vehicle is also not advisable as the same would result into emanating high voltage in the ignition system, which would result into vibrations in the engine and consequently the efficiency of the engine would also be affected. The complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party almost with a similar complaint on every occasion. The opposite party promptly attended to the grievances of the complainant on every occasion and as such there is no deficit of service rendered at any point of time. On every occasion, the complainant was taking delivery of the vehicle by expressing his satisfaction. The vehicle was brought to the workshop on 22.2.2013. The opposite party opened the job card and problems pointed out by the complainant were almost similar. On 22.2.2013 the opposite party provided a loner car to the complainant for his regular usage and thoroughly checked the vehicle through senior and experienced technicians. The vehicle was delivered on 27.2.2013. On that date, the technicians for the first time have accompanied the complainant when the vehicle was taken to a test drive. The technicians, who accompanied in the vehicle, observed that the complainant was starting the vehicle directly in LPG mode, which is a clear violation of warranty. The vehicle should start in petrol mode at the first instance and to come to neutal and thereafter to use the LPG mode. Otherwise, there will be misfiring in the engine, which would cause vibrations and also stalling of the vehicle. The technicians accompanied the complainant thoroughly educated him with regard to the above aspects. It is very clear that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. After 27.2.2013 there were no complaints. As per the warranty if any parts are found to be defective or not properly functioning those parts alone would be replaced during the period of warranty. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed separate version and there is no need to mention the averments of the version, because the averments are similar to that of the version filed by the 1st opposite party so no need to reiterate and ultimately prayed to dismiss the complaint
4. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On behalf of the 1st opposite party Sri Ch.Srinivas, Director gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party Sri P.Karthik, a qualified engineer filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.3 to Ex.B.17.
5. Heard and perused.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties
towards the complainant in not replacing the defective car with new one?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
7. On perusing the material on hand the complainant purchased Marthi Omni Van LPG Version on 31.1.2012 from the 1st opposite party under Ex.B.4 for an amount of Rs.2,44,018/-. As per the complainant, from the next day of its purchase the vehicle gave troubles to him. He approached the service centre of the opposite parties for repairs of his vehicle on 16.2.2012, 27,2,2012, 19,2,2012, 30.3.2012 under Ex.A.2 and informed the same to the opposite parties and the opposite parties attended the repairs. Again The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for repairs of his vehicle on 2.4.2012, 13.4.2012, 8.5.2012, 11.5.2012 under Ex.A.3 job cards for effecting repairs. But the defects are not rectified and he approached the 1st opposite party with some problems of the vehicle on 20.8.2012, 6.9.2012, 19.11.2012 and 21.12.2012 under Ex.A.4 job cards. As the defects were not rectified even then he again approached the 1st opposite party for repairs of his vehicle on 21.1.2013, 22.1.2013 and 18.3.2013 under Ex.B.5. But the vehicle gave troubles one after another. The complainant informed the said fact to the 1st opposite party and requested to replace the vehicle. But they did not do so. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice under Ex.A.7 dated 16.2.2013 demanding the opposite parties to refund the cost of the vehicle and other insurance charges along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle till date and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, in case of failure the complainant will approach to the court of law. He also paid Rs.9,966/- on 16.2.2012 for effecting repairs under Ex.A.6. The 1st opposite party received the said notice under Ex.A.8, but kept quiet. The warranty period for the vehicle was given for 24 months or 40,000 kms whichever before as per warranty manual under Ex.B.1. The complainants says that the 1st opposite party sold the vehicle with manufacturing defects and failed to replace the same with new one.
8. The defence of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties issued warranty in accordance with the rules and regulations and delivered the owners manual Ex.B.1 which contains the warranty limitations and free service coupons and also the suggestions and advises regarding periodical maintenance of the vehicle and also with regard to precautions to be taken while the vehicle is put into motion. The complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre of the 1st opposite party on 16.2.2012 under Ex.B.7 with complaints of running repair, engine missing in gas, second gear hard, right side sliding door hardness. The opposite parties say that when there is no proper usage, release of clutch at the time of driving, sometimes the gears appears to be hard depending upon the driving pattern of the driver. The driver has to adjust himself depending upon his height. The complainant is a short man and he was finding difficulty in releasing clutch which resulted into second gear appearing to be hard. Again the complainant approached the opposite parties on 1.3.2012 with the defects of engine oil and filter R/P- All oil levels C/P – 15 ams fues glowing continuously LPG case Leak C/P- vehicle not starting gases conversion guses failure and the repairs were effected under Ex.B.8 but again and again the complainant approached with some problems on 3.7.2012, 20.8.2012, 21.12.2012, 22.2.2013, 11.3.2013, 8.3.2013 and 10.5.2013 and the opposite parties rectified the defects under Ex.B.10 to Ex.B.17 respectively and the complainant installed high frequency horns in the vehicle at an outside workshop. He also fitted a fan and also a CD player at an outside workshop, which are also against the warranty. High frequency horns, other than those provided by the manufacturer, are used, high voltage would emerge out and as consequence thereof there would be power fluctuations in the ignition system, which would affect the engine RPM. So also used of the fans in the vehicle is also not advisable as the same would result into emanating high voltage in the ignition system, which would result into vibrations in the engine and consequently the efficiency of the engine would also be affected. The complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party almost with a similar complaint on every occasion. The opposite party promptly attended to the grievances of the complainant. On every occasion, the complainant was taking delivery of the vehicle by expressing his satisfaction. The vehicle was brought to the workshop on 22.2.2013 for repairs and the opposite party provided a loner car to the complainant for his regular usage and thoroughly checked the vehicle through senior and experienced technicians. The vehicle was delivered on 27.2.2013 and the technicians have accompanied the complainant when the vehicle was taken to a test drive. The technicians, who accompanied in the vehicle, observed that the complainant was starting the vehicle directly in LPG mode, which is a clear violation of warranty. The vehicle should start in petrol mode at the first instance and to come to neutal and thereafter to use the LPG mode. Otherwise, there will be misfiring in the engine, which would cause vibrations and also stalling of the vehicle. But there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. After 27.2.2013 there were no complaints. As per the warranty if any parts are found to be defective or not properly functioning those parts alone would be replaced during the period of warranty.
9. During the pendency of the above complaint the complainant filed an IA 83/2014 praying the Forum to pass appropriate orders for cross-examine the opposite parties witnesses. The Forum gave an order to deliver the questioneir to the opposite parties to answer the questions. Then the complainant filed a questioneir and the opposite parties answered for the same.
10. We the Forum noticed that the job cards filed by the complainant and opposite parties show the defects in the car. No one can approach the service centre several times for ordinary repairs without following the directions of the owner’s manual. When the vehicle came to the workshop of the opposite parties on several times means there must be manufacturing defect and it gives continuous troubles to the complainant within warranty period. Hence the opposite parties has to replace the vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle to the complainant. But they did not do so. Hence there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and they are liable to fulfill the reliefs of the complainant as he prayed. The complainant is entitled for the same.
POINT No.3:-
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are jointly and severally are directed to replace the Maruthi Omni Van LPG version (which was purchased by the complainant on 31.1.2012) after taking back the old car from the complainant with a new vehicle or in alternative to pay the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.2,44,018/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle till realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:
P.W.1 V.Rama Krishna, D.W.1 Ch.Srinivas,
Complainant, Director,1st opposite party
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
D.W.2 P.Karthik, a
qualified engineer
of the 2nd opposite party
(by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A.1 . . Photocopies of Temporary Certificate of registration, Certificate of registration and an online copy.
Ex.A.2 . . Four Demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheets (Job Slip).
Ex.A.3 . . Four Demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheets (Job Slip).
Ex.A.4 . . Four Demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheets (Job Slip).
Ex.A.5 . . Three Demanded repairs and job instructions capturing sheets (Job Slip).
Ex.A.6 . . photocopies of Tax receipt, cash receipt voucher and two bank receipt vouchers.
Ex.A.7 16.02.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.8 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex,.A.9 18.02.2013 Postal receipt.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
Ex.B.1 . . Photocopy of Terms and conditions.
Ex.B.2 22.02.2013 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.3 . . Photocopy of Dealership agreement.
Ex.B.4 . . Bunch of Photocopies of documents.
Ex.B.5 . . Photocopy of Document showing about warranty.
Ex.B.6 . . Photocopy of Document showing about Inspection and maintenance.
Ex.B.7 16.02.2012 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.8 01.03.2012 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.9 . . Photocopy of Document showing about other controls and equipment.
Ex.B.10 03.07.2012 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.11 20.08.2012 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.12 21.12.2012 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.13 . . Photocopy of owner’s manual
Ex.B.14 22.02.2013 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.15 11.03.2013 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.16 18.03.2013 Photocopy of Job card.
Ex.B.17 10.05.2013 Photocopy of Job card.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
