Haryana

Panchkula

CC/56/2019

KAMALJEET SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NEXA AUTOPACE NETWORK PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

TAJINDER SINGH

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	56 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	22.01.2019
Date of Decision	:	30.11.2023

 

 

Kamaljeet Singh son of Shri Satbir Singh, resident of village Ambwala, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.  M/s Nexa Autopace  Network Pvt. Ltd. Gate No.3, Elante Mall,       178/178-A, Ground Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh      through its authorized signatory.

2.     Maruti Suzuki Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area,         Phase-I, Panchkula Zirakpur- Kalka Highway, Haryana-134113      through its authorized signatory.

3.     Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.112-113, Industrial Area,     Phase-I, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory. 

4.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Old Palam Gurugraon Road, Gurugrum,         Haryana- 122015, through its authorized signatory.  

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Tejinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Authorised representative of OPs No.1 to 3.

                        Sh. Salil Sablok, Advocate for OP No.4.

 

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a new Baleno car, manufactured by OP No.4, on 23.05.201, from OP No.1; the complainant had purchased the extended warranty of 2 years in addition to the available warranty of 2 years. It is averred that the defects qua the sound of the horn was noticed by the complainant after the purchase of the vehicle. It is stated that the horn had started giving bad noise, which was very irritating to hear, which could cause an accident. The complainant had brought the issue of defects in the horn into the notice of OP No.2, while he had visited it in connection with getting the 2^nd and 3^rd services of the car. It is averred that on 29.12.2017, the alternator of the vehicle was replaced but the horn issue was not resolved. Thereafter, the OP No.2 replaced the horn of the car in question with the horn of the Swift car but the horn issue remained the same. On 19.02.2018, the OP no.2 expressed its inability to sort out the issue and accordingly, the complainant visited the Chandigarh branch (OP No.3) on 27.02.2018 but the problem was not solved. It is averred that an email was sent by the complainant on 19.05.2018 to OP No.1 seeking the resolution of horn issue. Thereafter, in the month of July, Sh. Baljinder Singh, CEO of OP No.3 informed the complainant that issue had been raised with OP No.4, who had replied that the issue faced by the complainant was also being faced by the other car owners. Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to OPs on 10.12.2018 but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notices, the OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act; the complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operator’s service book, as recommended for smooth and better performance of the vehicle in question at optimum cost viz. correct operating procedures- do’s and don’ts for maintenance and performance of the vehicle. It is stated that in view of improper maintenance and servicing of the vehicle, the warranty ceases to exist. It is stated that  the complaint is not maintainable in the absence of any expert report as required vide Section 13(1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is stated that the relationship between the OPs No.1 to 3 on the one hand with OP No.4 i.e. manufacturer on the other hand is based on principal to principal basis and thus, no liability can be fastened upon the dealer i.e. OPs No.1 to 3 for any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle; as such; the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question on 23.05.2017, which had extended warranty for 2+2 years or 80km, whichever is earlier. It is denied that there were any defects in the working of the horn as the same is working properly and giving the proper sound. It is submitted that the first service of the car was carried out, after coverage of 1409km, on 21.06.2017 and no issue qua horn was raised on that day. It is submitted that the horn was got approved from ARAI by the OP No.3 prior to launching of the said model of the car in the market. It is denied that alternator was changed and that the horn of the Swift Car was replaced as alleged. The horn of the vehicle was checked on 11.12.2017 but no defect was found therein. It is submitted that the complainant had visited the OPs No.1 to 3 on 19.02.2018 and pointed out that the vehicle was giving noise from the front side but on inspection, no such problem was found. It is submitted that on 28.02.2018, the vehicle was again brought to the workshop of the OPs and it was pointed out by the complainant that the horn noises used to change/vary at the speed of 60-80KM from 1500 to 2000rpm. It is submitted that on checking of the said alleged defect, no such issue was found and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and baseless.

                Upon notice, the OP No.4 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint to obtain undue gains from the OP No.4; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. It is submitted that the vehicle in question has always been attended as per terms and conditions of warranty. The complainant has made purposeful and extensive use of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in services, negligence or default on the part of OP No.4 of any nature. It is submitted that Ist free inspection service was done on 18.06.2017 at 1217 Kms and no issue was reported by the complainant on that day and 2^nd free inspection service was done on 03.09.2017 at 4600Kms but no issue relating to horn was reported by the complainant. Again, at the time of 3^rd free inspection service on 11.12.2017 at 9324 Kms, no problem relating to horn was reported. It is submitted that for the first time, issue qua horn was reported to OP NO.2 on 28.12.2017 at 10019 kms. The reported issue was inspected and diagnosed and accordingly, necessary repair/replacement was carried out under warranty. It is denied that the vehicle was sent by the complainant to the workshop on 30.12.2017. On 19.02.2018, vehicle was sent to workshop of OP No.2 but no problem of horn was reported. On 28.02.2018, horn issue was reported but on inspection, horn was found to be in OK and good working condition. Infact, the said inspection was done in the presence of the complainant and it was compared with similar vehicle also and horn was found to be the same; So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.   

3.The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-18 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R1/A along with documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/3 and close the evidence. The learned counsel for OP No.4 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-4/A along with documents Annexure R-4/1 to R-4/7 and close the evidence.  

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, Authorised representative of OPs No.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for OP No.4 and gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the complainant, OPs No.1 to 3 & OP No.4, minutely and carefully.

5.During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant, reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant, contended that the complainant was facing the issue of bad noise emanating from the horn since the purchase of the vehicle  by  him on 23.05.2017. It is argued that a bad noise was being emanated from the horn during its use, while driving the vehicle. It is argued that the authorized service centre of OPs could not resolve the issue of bad noise emanating from the horn during the 2^nd & 3^rd service of the vehicle. The learned counsel argued that the replacement of the horn of the car in question with the horn of Swift car or the change of the alternator by the OP’s also failed to resolve the horn issue because of certain inherent manufacturing defects in the car and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3, during arguments, reiterated the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit(Annexure R-1/A) and contended that  the noise emanating  from the horn was found normal  during its checking. It is contended that the horn was installed by the manufacturer in the vehicle in question, after getting the same approved from the ARAI, prior to the launching of the model of the car in question. It is argued that the complainant has failed to prove the defect in the horn as alleged and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false, baseless and frivolous.

                 Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel argued that the relationship between the OPs No.1 to 3 on one hand and the OP No.4 i.e. the manufacturer are based on principal to principal basis and thus, no liability can be fastened upon the OPs No.1 to 3 for any defect in the vehicle.

7.The learned counsel for the OP No.4, during arguments, reiterated the averments as made in its written statement as well as affidavit (Annexure R4/A) and contended that no issue qua the horn was raised by the complainant during the first three services of the vehicle. The learned counsel contended that the issue qua the defect in the horn was raised Ist time with OP No.2 on 28.12.2017, who got the horn inspected and replaced/repaired during warranty. It is argued that the working of the horn was found OK and proper on its inspection on 28.02.2018 and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false, baseless and frivolous.

8.During the pendency of the present complaint, the matter qua horn issue was referred to Senior Mechanical Engineer Haryana Government Central Workshop (Haryana, Chandigarh), Plot No.20-21, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh vide our order dated 23.11.2021, who has sent his inspection report bearing no.354/WC/ GCW dated 15.02.2022.

9.The complainant has filed the objections against the said inspection report on 15.02.2022 through his counsel, mentioning therein, that the said inspection report was not correct as the inspection team itself was confused in its approach and thus, the inspection report is liable to be ignored.

10.The Ops No.1 to 3 has also filed the objections on 10.08.2022 against the said inspection report dated 15.02.2022 through their counsel mentioning therein that the said workshop is not authorized to give its expert opinion and that the said workshop is not equipped with required tools to give an expert opinion based on scientific reasons. The learned counsel argued that the said workshop could not find out  as to whether the horn issue had occurred due to wear and tear problem or due to the manufacturing  defects in the horn  and thus,  no reliance can be placed on the said inspection report

11.The objections filed by the complainant as well as Ops No.1 to 3 through their respective counsels are not tenable. The Central workshop,headed by Senior Mechanical Engineer, Haryana Government, Chandigarh, is an independent workshop and the engineers and technical persons employed therein possess the necessary technical qualifications with wide experience; so, there is no reason to doubt their qualification, experience and impartiality.

12.Pertinently, the fault in the horn set was observed by inspection team as per inspection report No.354 dated 15.02.2022. The inspection team had further observed “no sound cracking” in the horn after the replacement of the horn set with new one. The horn was tested for three days as per inspection team. The relevant para in this regard is reproduced as under:-

                “The above said vehicle was tested for “horn not working properly” issue. Horn of the car is working properly when vehicle’s engine is started and vehicle is not moving but when vehicle is moving at engine rpm@1500, horn is not working properly (sound cracks in between). After this horn set of this vehicle was replaced with new one and vehicle was tested for more 3 days and it was found that there is no sound cracking”.

 

13.Further, the defects in the horn was reported vide job-sheet dated 01.03.2018(Annexure C-6), wherein following recommendations were made:-

        “Horn problem at the speed 60-80 km, 1500 to 2000rpm horn noise changes. FTIR raised ticket other two vehicle checked noise is same customer not happy with this sound”.

 

14.From the recommendations made by the authorized service centre(OP No.2) vide said job-sheet dated 01.03.2018 (Annexure C-6) read with the observations made by the inspection team vide inspection report no.354/WC/GCW dated 15.02.2022, it is well proved that there are defects in the horn set of the car in question, which had arisen duringthe warranty period. The OPs No.1 to 4 have failed to rectifythe defects in the horn set despite the repeated request made by the complainant and thus, the OPs No.1 to 3 as well as OP No.4 were deficient, while rendering services to the complainant, for which, they are held liable jointly and severally .

15.In relief, the complainant has prayed for rectification of the defects in the car, having horn sound variations and, in case, the OPs fails to rectify the defects, in that event, the purchase price of car be refunded to him. Further a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.51,000/- have been claimed on account of physical harassment, mental agony and litigation charges. Undisputedly, there are no other defects in the working of the vehicle except the horn, so, the prayer of the complainant qua the refund of the purchase price is not justified and thus; the same is declined.

16.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OPs No.1 to 4 are directed to replace the horn       set    with new one, free of cost. The Ops are directed to ensure that the issue of emanating of     bad noise or cracking of sound during the use of     horn, while the vehicle is being driven, is completely resolved in its entirety.  
2. The OPs No.1 to 4, after making compliance of the directions as mentioned in para no.1 above, will get       the vehicle in question inspected from Senior    Mechanical Engineer Government Central Workshop     (Haryana Chandigarh), Plot No.20-21, Industrial       Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, who will certify vide his   separate report after making the necessary      inspection   that the directions issued para no.1        above have been      complied with by OPs No.1 to 4. In        case, the Senior     Mechanical Engineer finds some     omissions qua compliance of directions, he will     send the inspection report showing the omissions to     the    complainant and OPs No.1 to 4.
3. The OPs No.1 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of       Rs.10,000/-to the complainant on account of mental      agony and harassment.
4. The OPs No.1 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of       Rs.5,500/-  as litigation charges.

 

17.  The OPs No.1 to 4 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 to 4. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 30.11.2023

 

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

 

 

CC.56 of 2019

Present:             Sh. Tejinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Authorised representative of OPs No.1 to 3.

                        Sh. Salil Sablok, Advocate for OP No.4.

                                         

 

                       Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 30.11.2023 for orders.

Dt.23.11.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:             Sh.Tejinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Authorised representative of OPs No.1 to 3.

                        Sh.Salil Sablok, Advocate for OP No.4.

                                         

 

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 to 4 with costs.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.30.11.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President