Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/827/2011

V.K.Aneja S/o G.D.Aneja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Pandit Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Bhatia

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 827 of 2011.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 5.8.2011.

                                                                                       Date of decision: 06.04.2016.

V.K.Ahuja son of Sh. G.D.Ahuja resident of 5, Sanavar Vila, Inderlok Street, Opp. Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Pandit Automobiles, Yamuna Nagar through its Propreitor/ Partner.
2. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Service Division, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015 through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Respondents.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Complainant in person with counsel Sh. K.S.Bhatia, Advocate    

                Sh. Rajiv Chawla, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.                

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a Maruti A Star bearing registration No. HR-02U-3141 from the dealer i.e. respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) on 11.2.2009 which was manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. OP No.2. From the very beginning some defects qua AC unit, reverse gear and low speed running problem were persisting  in the vehicle and some were rectified by the OP No.1. Although as the Op No.1 remained failed to rectify remaining some problems so the complainant earlier filed a complaint before this Forum which was later on compromised and an amount of Rs. 1047/- was refunded to the complainant and that complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.5.2011.

3.                     After that complainant again started facing problem as the vehicle started to emit abnormal sound and this fact was also brought to the notice of Op No.1 and the caliper set was replaced on 27.05.2011 and for this purpose the complainant left his car with the OP No.1 on 27.05.2011 and Op No.1 assured the complainant that they will provide their services to the complainant (FOC) “ Free of Cost” and the same was also written down by the OPs on their job order card. But when the complainant went to the service station of Op No.1 to take the delivery of the said car, then the Op No.1 demanded Rs.300/- as oil charges from the complainant. However, the complainant refused to pay the same as at the time of issuing job card (Annexure C-3) Op No.1 assured the complainant that the service is free of costs, so, the complainant met the M.D. of OP No.1 and brought all the facts in his notice but he did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant rather he misbehaved with the complainant and forced him to pay Rs. 300/-. Feeling constrained the complainant paid Rs. 300/- to OP No.1 vide cash memo No. BC11001548 dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure C-4). Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure C-5) to the OPs calling therein to extend the warranty free of cost for another two years, refund of Rs. 300/- which was wrongly charged and unconditional apology and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages to compensate the complainant for mental agony and harassment etc. It has been further stated that the car of the complainant is still not defect less as reverse gear of the car in question gives lot of noise and car suddenly stopped in a slow speed in crowding. It has been further mentioned that there is a manufacturing defect in the right hand side head light of the car in question and due to the leakage of water, there is accumulation of water vapours/ moisture on the glass of the head light and this defect was also brought to the notice of the OPs many times through E-mails as well as reminders but no action whatsoever was taken by the OPs. Further stated that complainant feels cheated and defrauded and so much so that the complainant has lost faith in his vehicle and as such he used to hire taxies for outstation journeys and uses the personal vehicle locally only. Lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint with the direction to refund Rs.300/- and to replace the right hand side head light of the car and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and two years extended warranty free of costs alongwith litigation expenses.    

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi, complaint is not maintainable, complainant has concealed the true facts, estopped by his own act and conduct, no cause of action and on merit it has been admitted that OP No.1 is authorized dealer of OP No.2 manufacturer and all other allegations were specifically denied. It has been further stated that the alleged defects as indicated by the complainant in his complaint actually relate to the driving habits. As per the vehicle history, it is clear that the car in question met with accidents on various occasions which shows the bad driving habits of the complainant. In fact when the car in question was handed over to the complainant, the same was PDI OK and certified by the OP No.2, there was absolutely no defect in the car. Previously, the complainant filed a complaint on false and frivolous ground but to avoid unnecessary litigation and harassment, the OP No.1 had paid a sum of Rs. 1047/- and the complainant withdrew his complaint. It has been further admitted that on 27.5.2011, complainant visited the work shop of OP No.1 and was advised to change caliper set assembly in the car in question which is a normally wear and tear part of the vehicle and accordingly as per Annexure B the same part had been changed by OP No.1 under extended warranty and no service charge and cost of part has been charged from the complainant. On the same day 500 ML brake fluid has been poured in the engine of the car which was not covered under the extended warranty and the Op No.1 raised a bill of Rs. 300/- the cost of brake fluid and this, amount of Rs. 300/- has been rightly charged from the complainant. It has been further stated that as per the history of vehicle, the complainant never raised any type of objections regarding the alleged defect. As per job order dated 27.5.2011 full right hand side rubbing of the car in question had been done due to accidental work which is not covered under MSIL warranty policies. The OP No.1 works as per MSIL warranty terms and conditions of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  As and when any complaint was reported about the working of the vehicle the same was done. It is the complainant, who is not maintaining his car in proper manner and he cannot be allowed to benefits of his own wrong and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

5.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties, complaint is false and frivolous, the allegations made in the proportionate complaint are out of the scope and ambit of the allegations, as required by section 2(1)( c) of the Act. The present complaint is barred by principal of resjudicata, complainant is habitual litigant and has filed the present complaint with intent to obtain unjust gains and on merit all the allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect. Besides this, it has been stated that Op No.2 is reputed car manufacturer engaged in manufacturing of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles (cars) in India for more than 25 years and the relation between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 are that of principal to Principal basis only as per agreement executed between the OPs. It has been further submitted that on 8.6.2009 at 4228 Kms, the complainant sent the vehicle at work shop for obtaining running repairs with demanded repair of horn not working and front side noise. Upon thorough inspection no abnormality was observed and on stiff demand of the complainant horn assy was replaced under warranty free of cost. As per record 2^nd and 3^rd free inspection service was carried out on 30.7.2009 at 5860 Kms and on 2.4.2010 at 13596 Kms. Respectively. The complainant, repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of warranty and was grossly negligent in proper servicing and maintenance of vehicle in question. It has been further submitted that the vehicle was attended by the Op No.1 on 27.5.2011 at 26670 Kms for running repair. The clipper assembly was replaced under warranty of FOC basis and the complainant paid the alleged consideration to the workshop i.e. OP No.1 on account of cost of consumable enumerated under clause 4 of the warranty policy. It is submitted that at the time of the said repair/or repairs under warranty, labour charges were exempted and the complainant is liable to pay cost of material and consumable which comes under the purview of clause 4 of the warranty policy i.e. Oil Filter, Oils, coolant, spark plugs, etc. even within warranty period customers has to pay for obtaining services and for the parts/services enumerated under clause 4 of the warranty policy. The complainant paid a meager consideration of Rs. 300/- to the workshop and took the vehicle after service to his entire satisfaction. The complainant with intent to obtain the services on FOC basis has filed this false and frivolous complaint and to exert legal pressure. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  

6.                     To prove his  case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavits as Annexure CX & CY and documents such as copy of certificate dated 26.11.2014 issued by Sunil Kumar as Annexure C-1, Photograph of car as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of job order card dated 27.5.2011 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of bill of Pandit Automobile dated 27.5.2011 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of complaint made to Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of clarification letter dated 17.6.2011 issued by Pandit Automobile as Annexure C-6 and closed his evidence.   

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Sharma as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy of warranty terms and conditions as Annexure R-1, Photo copies of vehicle history dated 27.5.2011, 29.4.2011, 31.3.2010 and 30.7.2009 as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

8.                     Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence copy of E-mail dated 21.8.2012 as Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.

9.                     We have heard the counsels for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   After going through the entire contents of the complaint and hearing the complainant in person, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is nothing except abuse of process of law as the complainant has totally failed to prove his case by filing cogent evidence that car in question was having any manufacturing defect or any unfair trade practice has been done by Op No.1. The only grievances of the complainant is that OP No.1 has charged Rs. 300/- from the complainant which is evident from Bill dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure C-4) whereas the OP No.1 cannot charge the same as the car of the complainant was under the period of extended warranty which is evident from Annexure C-3 job card on which FOC ( “free of cost”) has been mentioned by OP No.1.

11.                   On the other hand, the plea of the OPs is that an amount of Rs. 300/- has been charged on account of 500 ML brake fluid which was not covered  under the extended warranty and OP No.1 duly raised a bill of Rs. 300/-. It has been further argued by the counsel for OPs that on 27.5.2011 full right hand side rubbing of the car in question was done due to accidental work which is not covered under the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Warranty policies. Further the learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the Job Sheets dated 27.5.2011, 29.4.2011, 31.3.2010 and 30.02.2009 Annexure R-2, from which it is evident that on 30.7.2009 second free service of the car in question was carried out without any complaint and charges. In job sheet dated 31.3.2010 accidental repair has been done in respect of rear bumper. Further, in the job sheet dated 29.4.2011 again accidental repair was done in respect of front right door replacement. We have also perused the job sheet deated 27.5.2011 (Annexure C-4/R-2) carefully from which it is evident that the following work was done under demand repair:

                        Clipper set changed, full right hand side rubbing, and brake fluid 500 ML and a bill of Rs. 6456.13 was raised, however, only Rs. 300/- were charged from the complainant on account of consumable item i.e. brake fluid only and rest amount has been waived off due to extended warranty of the car in question. Complainant has totally failed to convince this Forum that charges of consumable item will not be charged by the OPs under the scheme of FOC and in the absence of any specific terms and conditions, we are unable to understand that complainant was not liable to pay on account of consumable item in respect of his car. Further, the complainant has totally failed to convince this Forum that Rs. 300/- has been charged from the complainant illegally due to any revenge and OP No.1 has played unfair trade practice. The certificate dated 26.11.2014 (Annexure C-1) filed by the complainant has no relevancy with the present case as the matter in dispute is relating to the period of 27.5.2011 and this certificate has been obtained on 26.11.2014. Besides this, no qualification has been disclosed or mentioned in respect of Sunil Kumar who has issued this certificate on a plain paper mentioning therein that (i) some time back gear gives problem at the time of reverse (ii) sometime car stops in low speed. Except this certificate (Annexure C-1), no other report of any mechanic or service engineer has been filed to prove the manufacturing defect in the car in question.  Further the version of the complainant that he feels cheated and defrauded by the OPs is also not tenable as no such evidence has been filed, however these facts can not be proved in summary way and the complainant can knock the door of Civil Court, if so desires.

12.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant has totally failed to prove his case that the car in question was having any manufacturing defect and further an amount of Rs. 300/- has been illegally charged from the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

13.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 06.04.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER